THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 


GIFT  OF 

Professor  William  Popper 


Messrs.  Roberts  Brothers    Publications. 


WAYS  OF  THE  SPIRIT, 


OTHER   ESSAYS. 

BY  FREDERIC    HENRY   HEDGE,  D.D. 

Square  I2mo.     Price  $2.00. 

From  the  Boston  Transcript. 

Probably  it  will  be  only  after  the  contents  of  this  volume  have  been  perused  by 
many  of  its  readers  that  they  will  fully  appreciate  the  significance  and  felicity 
of  its  title.  Through  the  discussion  and  treatment  of  all  the  deeply  momentous 
themes  opened  in  it,  the  scholarly  and  erudite  author  pursues  a  method  which 
may  well  be  described  as  following  the  lead  of  the  Spirit,  —  looking  within  and 
beyond  all  the  limitations  of  the  letter  with  its  narrowness  and  rigidness,  in  order 
to  discern  the  vital,  spiritual,  harmonizing  element  in  the  subjects  which  have 
been  belittled  and  cramped  by  superstition,  ignorance,  and  controversy. 

There  are  fourteen  essays  in  the  volume  betore  us,  which  come  in  fitting 
sequence  to  those  published  in  two  former  volumes  by  the  same  author,  under  the 
titles  of  "  Reason  and  Religion"  and  "  Primeval  Word  of  Hebrew  Tradition." 
In  these  new  essays,  the  method  ot  the  author,  as  we  have  indicated  above,  is  to 
follow  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  —  the  vitalizing,  informing,  and  harmonizing 
element  of  truth  —  into  the  development  of  some  of  the  profoundest  themes 
embraced  under  the  term  religion. 

From  the  Boston  Daily  A  dz>ertiser. 

No  publication  in  theology  which  reflects  more  credit  on  American  literature 
has  ever  fallen  under  our  eye. 

We  doubt  if  any  three  or  four  hundred  pages  elsewhere  in  print  imply  and 
comprise  deeper  or  clearer  converse  with  the  principles  of  human  thought  and 
action. 

From  the  Neiu  York  Tribune. 

The  basis  of  religious  faith,  according  to  Dr.  Hedge,  is  to  be  found  in  the 
higher  nature  of  man.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  authority,  of  tradition,  of  fantasy, 
but  of  spiritual  intuition.  In  the  broadest  sense,  it  is  the  life  of  sentiment  as 
distinguished  from  that  of  the  understanding.  It  implies  the  abnegation  of  self 
in  devotion  to  ideas  and  objects  of  supreme  intrinsic  worth.  It  is  the  answer  of 
the  heart  to  the  claims  of  beauty,  duty,  honor,  man.  .  .  . 

The  superficial  thinker  will  doubtless  find  the  suggestions  of  Dr.  Hedge  too 
refined,  too  subtle,  for  his  acceptance,  perhaps  even  for  his  comprehension  ;  the 
Sceptic  will  complain  of  too  urgent  demands  upon  the  sentiment  of  faith;  the 
dogmatist  will  leel  the  atmosphere  of  thought  too  attenuated  for  his  habitual 
breathing;  but  the  lover  of  contemplation,  the  student  of  divine  mysteries  who 
delights  to  haunt  the  sacred  stream  that  flows  "fast  by  the  oracles  of  God," 
will  welcome  the  musings  of  the  author  as  a  stimulus  to  his  faith  and  an  aid  to 
his  communion  and  friendship  with  the  universe. 

Sold  by  all  Booksellers.  Mailed,  postpaid,  by  the  Pub- 
lishers, 

ROBERTS    BROTHERS,   BOSTON. 


Messrs.  Roberts  Brothers'*  Publications. 
IN  PREPARATION. 

THE  BIBLE  FOR  YOUNG  PEOPLE. 

By  Dr.  H.  OORT,  of  Ley  den,  and  Dr.  I.  HOOYKAAS, 
Pastor  at  Rotterdam. 

Translated  from  the  Dutch  by  Rev.  P.  H.    Wicksteed,  of  London. 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.     2  vols,   i2mo.      Price  $4.00. 
THE  NEW  TESTAMENT,     i  vol.     i2mo.      Price  $2.00. 


"  This  work  emanates  from  the  Dutch  school  of  theologians. 
Nowhere  in  Europe,"  said  the  lamented  J.  J.  Tayler,  "  has  theo- 
logical science  assumed  a  bolder  or  more  decisive  tone  [than  in 
Holland] ;  though  always  within  the  limits  of  profound  reverence, 
and  an  unenfeebled  attachment  to  the  divine  essence  of  the  gos- 
pel. .  .  .  We  know  of  no  work  done  here  which  gives  such  evi- 
dence of  solid  scholarship  joined  to  a  deep  and  strong  religious 
spirit.  The  '  Bible  for  Young  People '  should  be  the  means  to 
very  many,  both  old  and  young,  of  a  more  satisfying  idea  of  what 
Israel  really  was  and  did  among  the  nations." 


Sold  by  all  Booksellers.     Mailed,  postpaid,  by  the  Pub- 
Ushers, 

ROBERTS    BROTHERS,   BOSTON. 


THE 


RELIGION  OF  ISRAEL, 


TRANSLATED    FROM    THE    DUTCH    OF 

J.    KNAPPERT, 

PASTOR   AT    LEIDEN  } 


BY 

RICHARD   A.   ARMSTRONG,    B.A. 


BOSTON: 

ROBERTS    BROTHERS. 

1878. 


Cambridge : 
Press-work  by  John   Wilson   &>  Son, 


GIFT 


TRANSLATOR'S   PREFACE. 


HHE  Appendix  which  will  be  found  at  the  end 
of  this  little  volume  forms,  in  the  Dutch 
original,  the  second  section  of  a  systematic  cate- 
chism on  the  history  of  religion,  drawn  up  by 
H.  G.  Hagen,  W.  Scheffer,  R.  Koopmans  van 
Boekeren,  and  J.  Knappert,  pastors  of  the  Re- 
formed Church  of  Holland.  The  book  here 
translated  is  a  guide  or  key  to  that  section  of 
the  catechism  and  to  that  section  only,  and  was 
prepared  by  the  last-mentioned  of  these  associ- 
ated authors  subsequently  to  the  catechism  itself. 
Hence  a  certain  baldness  and  angularity  which 
unquestionably  characterize  it.  Dr.  Knappert 
has  contented  himself  with  simply  following  Prof. 
Kuenen  in  this  work,  without  introducing  the 
speculations  or  opinions  of  other  scholars.  A 
better  guide  through  the  labyrinth  of  Israelitish 
history  he  could  not  have  found,  had  he  searched 
the  world  through.  Those  who  desire  a  fuller 
exposition  of  the  literary  and  historical  views 
here  propounded  will  find  it  in  Prof.  Kuenen's 

589 


IV  TRANSLATORS     PREFACE. 

great  work  on  the  Religion  of  Israel,  an  English 
version  of  which  has  been  published,  by  Messrs. 
Williams  and  Norgate,  in  the  Theological  Trans- 
lation Fund  Library. 

The  present  translation  is  literal,  except  in  one 
or  two  cases  where  I  have  made  verbal  altera- 
tions necessitated  by  the  fact  that,  while  the 
work  appears  in  English  by  itself,  in  the  Dutch 
it  is  but  one  link  in  the  chain  of  manuals  to  the 
catechism  mentioned  above.  This  same  fact  has 
led  me  to  add  a  very  few  explanatory  foot-notes 
of  my  own.  But  I  have,  in  each  instance,  signi- 
fied that  the  note  is  mine  by  appending  the 
letters  [Tr.]. 

A  compressed  work  of  this  kind  necessarily 
confines  itself  chiefly  to  the  mere  statement  of 
critical  conclusions,  without  exhibiting  the  facts 
and  arguments  which  have  led  to  them.  When 
we  further  reflect  that  the  book  expresses  the 
convictions  of  a  school  of  critics,  who,  however 
assured  their  ultimate  victory,  are  still  regarded 
by  many  with  dislike  and  suspicion  and  branded 
as  "  destructive,"  we  cannot  but  fear  that  there 
may  be  those  who  will  be  painfully  startled  by 
some  of  the  statements  made  in  the  following 
pages.  I  have,  however,  undertaken  the  trans- 
lation of  this  little  book  in  the  conviction  that  its 


TRANSLATORS     PREFACE.  V 

general  position  is  absolutely  unassailable,  even 
though  I  may  not  concur  in  every  opinion  ex- 
pressed in  it,  and  that  the  immense  majority  of 
its  statements  are  such  as  are  every  year  becom- 
ing more  indisputable.  It  appears  to  me  to  be 
profoundly  important  that  the  youthful  English 
mind  should  be  faithfully  and  accurately  informed 
of  the  results  of  modern  research  into  the  early 
development  of  the  Israelitish  religion.  Deplor- 
able and  irreparable  mischief  will  be  done  to 
the  generation  now  passing  into  manhood  and 
womanhood,'  if  their  educators  leave  them  igno- 
rant or  loosely  informed  on  these  topics ;  for 
they  will  then  be  rudely  awakened  by  the  enemies 
of  Christianity  from  a  blind  and  unreasoning 
faith  in  the  supernatural  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  and,  being  suddenly  and  bluntly  made 
aware  that  Abraham,  Moses,  David,  and  the  rest 
did  not  say,  do,  or  write  what  has  been  ascribed 
to  them,  they  will  fling  away  all  care  for  the 
venerable  religion  of  Israel  and  all  hope  that  it 
can  nourish  their  own  religious  life.  How  much 
happier  will  those  of  our  children  and  young 
people  be  who  learn  what  is  now  known  of  the 
actual  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Writings, 
from  the  same  lips  which  have  taught  them  that 
the  Prophets  indeed  prepared  the  way  for  Jesus, 


VI  TRANSLATORS    PREFACE. 

and  that  God  is  indeed  our  Heavenly  Father! 
For  these  will  without  difficulty  perceive  that 
God's  love  is  none  the  feebler  and  that  the  Bible 
is  no  less  precious,  because  Moses  knew  nothing 
of  the  Levitical  legislation,  or  because  it  was  not 
the  warrior  monarch  on  his  semi-barbaric  throne, 
but  some  far  later  son  of  Israel,  who  breathed 
forth  the  immortal  hymn  of  faith,  "The  Lord  is 
my  Shepherd:  I  shall  not  want." 

Works  like  the  present  are  to  be  regarded  by 
no  means  as  substitutes  for  the  study  of  the 
Bible,  but  as  aids  to  it ;  and  that  study  will  only 
the  more  enlarge  the  mind  and  expand  the  soul, 
as  a  freer  spirit  of  inquiry  and  a  fuller  informa- 
tion are  brought  to  its  pursuit. 

It  only  remains  to  state  that  this  translation 
has  been  undertaken  with  the  kind  sanction  of 
Dr.  Knappert;  and  that  I  have  enjoyed  the 
assistance  of  the  Rev.  Philip  H.  Wicksteed,  M.  A., 
so  far  as  to  give  me  some  confidence  that  I  have 
faithfully  represented  the  original  which  I  have 
had  before  me,  but  not  so  far  as  to  fix  on  him 
any  responsibility  for  inaccuracies  which  may,  in 

spite  of  my  care,  still  remain. 

R.  A.  A. 

Nottingham. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PACK 

SOURCES  OF  INFORMATION, i 

CHAPTER  II. 
THE  SAME  CONTINUED,    - 7 


CHAPTER  III. 
THE  SAME  CONTINUED, 19 

CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  TRIBES  IN  GOSHEN, 27 

CHAPTER  V. 
THE  SAME  CONTINUED, 33 

CHAPTER  VI. 
MOSES, 39 

CHAPTER  VII. 
THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  JUDGES, 52 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
SAMUEL  AND  SAUL, 63 

CHAPTER  IX. 
DAVID  AND  SOLOMON, 74 

CHAPTER  X. 
REHOBOAM  AND  THE  DISRUPTION  OF  THE  KINGDOM,    .      95 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XI. 
THE  KINGDOM  OF  ISRAEL 103 

CHAPTER  XII. 
THE  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH, 117 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

PROPHECY,          133 

% 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
THE  MESSIANIC  EXPECTATION, 146 

CHAPTER  XV. 
THE  SAGES, 153 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
THE  BABYLONISH  CAPTIVITY, 164 

CHAPTER  XVII. 
EZRA  AND  HIS  TIMES, 175 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 
PUBLIC  WORSHIP  AND  THE  SYNAGOGUE,         .        .        .     188 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

THE  JEWS  IN  THE  AGE  IMMEDIATELY  PRECEDING  THE 
CHRISTIAN  ERA, 204 

CHAPTER  XX. 
THE  SAME  CONTINUED, 225 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

THE  COLLECTION  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTA- 
MENT,    240 

APPENDIX, 247 


THE  RELIGION  OF  ISRAEL. 


CHAPTER   I. 

SOURCES    OF.  INFORMATION. 

T)EFORE  we  describe  the  religion  of  Israel  we 
•— '  must  consider  the  sources  from  which  we  get 
our  knowledge  of  it.  And  of  these  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  the  first  and  most  important  that  we  must 
notice.  We  give  this  name  to  a  collection  of  books 
which  the  Israelites  wrote  before  the  time  of  Christ. 
These  books  give  us  authentic  evidence  about  Israel's 
religious  condition  in  the  days  when  they  were  respec- 
tively composed;  so  that,  by  their  help,  we  can  trace 
the  religious  development  of  that  people. 

The  word  "  Testament "  is  not  to  be  understood  in 
its  usual  meaning  here.  The  Fathers  of  the  Latin 
Church  used  it  to  translate  a  Greek  word  which 
means  "covenant"  or  "agreement;"  and  accordingly 
that  is  the  sense  in  which  we  must  understand  the 
word  here.  This  name  has  been  given  to  the  collec- 
tion of  the  literature  of  the  ancient  Israelites,  because 
their  religion  is  regarded  as  a  covenant  or  agreement 


2  The  Religion  of  Israel 

between  God  and  their  nation.  The  name  of  the  religion 
was  transferred  to  the  books ;  first  to  the  five  which 
are  called  after  Moses,  because  in  these  the  terms  of 
the  covenant  were  described,  and  afterwards  to  all  the 
rest.  In  the  course  of  time,  however,  the  Christians 
began  to  apply  this  name  to  a  collection  of  their  own 
religious  writings ;  and  then,  for  the  sake  of  distinction, 
people  were  obliged  to  call  one  the  "  Old  Testament " 
or  "Covenant,"  and  the  other  the  "New."  We  call 
these  both  together  the  "Bible,"  that  is,  "Biblia," 
which  is  Greek  for  "  books." 

These  are  the  books  which  belong  to  the  Old 
Testament:  —  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers, 
Deuteronomy,  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  i  and  2  Samuel, 
i  and  2  Kings,  i  and  2  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah, 
Esther,  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of 
Solomon,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Lamentations,  Ezekiel, 
Daniel,  Hosea,  Joel,  Amos,  Obadiah,  Jonah,  Micah, 
Nahum,  Habakkuk,  Zephaniah,  Haggai,  Zechariah, 
and  Malachi.  They  are  written  in  Hebrew,  all  except 
a  few  short  passages,  namely,  Ezra  iv.  8  to  vi.  18 ;  vii. 
12  to  26;  Jeremiah  x.  n  ;  and  Daniel  ii.  4  to  vii.  28. 
These  are  written  in  Chaldee.  Hebrew,  the  language 
of  the  ancient  Israelites,  is  the  same  as  that  of  the 
Canaanites,  and  pretty  much  the  same  as  that  of  the 
Phoenicians.  Like  every  other  language,  Hebrew 
has  its  history.  This  history  may  be  traced  in  sundry 
words  and  forms,  which  have  undergone  changes  or 
have  dropped  out  of  use  altogether.  After  the 


Sources  of  Information.  3 

Babylonish  captivity,  Hebrew  got  more  and  more 
mixed  with  Chaldee,  till  at  last  it  died  out  entirely. 
This  circumstance  makes  it  possible  for  us  to  settle 
the  dates  of  the  different  writings  with  more  or  less 
accuracy. 

These  questions  of  date  are  of  the  very  utmost 
importance  to  us,  if  we  wish  to  understand  the  re- 
ligious development  of  Israel.  Each  book  of  the  Old 
Testament  contains  evidence  for  us  about  the  opinions 
and  the  ideas  entertained  by  its  author  and  the  men 
of  his  day.  If,  then,  we  are  to  become  acquainted 
with  the  manner  in  which  the  religious  ideas  of  the 
Israelites  grew  up  one  after  another,  we  must  first  find 
out  when  each  of  the  books  was  written;  then,  by 
comparing  these  same  books  together,  we  shall  be 
able  to  show  how  the  Israelites  advanced  from  one 
way  of  thinking  to  another.  If  we  could  not  do  this, 
we  might  at  once  give  up  the  idea  of  any  history  at 
all  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  and  we  should 
wander  about  at  random  without  discovering  any  pro- 
cess of  development.  Happily,  however,  the  ages  of 
these  books  are  now  known  with  sufficient  certainty, 
and  we  can  arrange  them  with  tolerable  accuracy  in 
chronological  order.  Of  course  this  does  not  pre- 
vent doubt  and  difference  of  opinion  from  still  ex- 
isting among  learned  men  about  certain  books,  and 
above  all  about  many  shorter  sections  of  some  of  the 
writings  ;  but  still  we  can  get  at  the  truth  in  the  main. 
It  is  only  within  the  last  hundred  years  that  men  have 


4  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

devoted  themselves  earnestly  to  the  investigation  of 
the  age  of  these  books.  Before  that  time  people  did 
not  pay  enough  attention  to  it.  They  simply  accepted 
whatever  tradition  had  handed  down  about  the  age  of 
the  writers ;  and  if  only  a  book  had  once  had  some 
name  attached  to  it,  they  relied  on  it  without  a  second 
thought.  The  consequence  was  that  people  got  a 
totally  wrong  conception  of  Israel's  religion,  and 
ascribed  to  ideas  of  comparatively  recent  date  a  much 
higher  antiquity. 

It  is  not  only  with  the  religion  of  Israel  that  we 
gain  acquaintance  from  the  Old  Testament,  but  it  also 
teaches  us  the  political  history  of  this  famous  nation. 
Indeed,  for  a  vast  proportion  of  that  history  it  is 
actually  the  only  authority  we  have  to  go  to.  In 
this  connection  we  must  take  especial  notice  of  the 
so-called  historical  books,  from  Genesis  to  Esther. 
The  other  books  contain,  it  is  true,  scattered  histori- 
cal information,  but  they  do  not  give  us  any  regular 
narrative  of  Israel's  fortunes.  In  the  books  just  now 
alluded  to,  we  find  narrations  about  the  most  ancient 
period  of  Israel's  national  existence.  These  stories 
go  right  back  to  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  then 
run  down  almost  continuously  to  the  time  of  Nehe- 
miah,  in  the  fifth  century  before  Christ ;  while  here 
and  there  in  the  later  books  we  come  upon  many 
records  of  the  following  centuries  too. 

We  shall  see  by  and  by  what  we  are  to  think  about 


Sources  of  Information.  5 

the  value  of  all  these  narratives.  All  that  we  have  to 
do  with  at  present  is  the  connection  between  the 
history  of  the  people  and  that  of  its  religion.  In  the 
first  place,  it  is  obvious  that  the  latter  must  be  fitted 
into  the  frame-work  of  the  former;  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  Israel  always  regarded  its  history  from  a 
religious  point  of  view,  and  the  course  of  its  fortunes 
exercised  great  influence  over  its  religious  ideas. 
Every  Israelite  believed  that  his  people  was  led  by 
God  with  peculiar  love  as  the  chosen  people,  and 
that  everything  that  happened  was  intended  either 
to  bless  it  or  to  punish  it.  This  is  why  it  is  impossible 
for  any  one  to  form  a  just  conception  of  Israel's 
religion  without  knowing  its  history. 

For  the  knowledge  of  the  last  period  of  Israel's 
national  existence  we  have  authorities  of  more  or  less 
importance  in  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha,  the 
Judceo-Alexandrian  literature  in  which  the  writings  of 
Philo  are  conspicuous,  Flavius  Josephus,  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  the  Talmud.  As  we  shall 
have  to  speak  more  at  length  about  most  of  these 
writings  by  and  by,  we  shall  say  very  little  about  them 
at  present.  The  Apocryphal  books  are  in  part  of 
great  importance,  especially  for  the  war  in  which  the 
Israelites  threw  off  the  yoke  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century  before  Christ, 
and  for  their  subsequent  fortunes,  the  first  book  of 
Maccabees  containing  very  trustworthy  records  con- 
cerning the  war  itself  and  the  events  which  succeeded 


6  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

it.  Philo,  a  Jew  of  Alexandria,  and  a  contemporary 
of  Jesus,  devoted  himself  to  religious  and  philosophi- 
cal compositions,  rather  than  historical ;  and  we  have 
hardly  any  one  else  to  go  to  if  we  wish  to  know  the 
opinions  of  the  Greek  Jews  of  that  time.  Flavius 
Josephus,  a  Jew  of  priestly  family,  who  lived  in  the 
second  half  of  the  first  century  after  the  birth  of 
Christ,  wrote  a  work  in  seven  books  on  the  Jewish 
War;  and  as  he  himself  played  an  important  part  in 
that  war,  his  book  is  of  great  value  to  the  historian. 
In  another  work  in  twenty  books  on  Jewish  Antiqui- 
ties, he  relates  the  history  of  the  Jews  from  the 
creation  of  the  world  down  to  his  own  day.  The 
writings  of  the  New  Testament,  too,  can  be  used  with 
great  advantage  for  the  times  in  which  they  were 
written;  while  the  oldest  parts  of  the  Talmud,  a 
collection  of  the  oral  tradition  current  among  the 
Israelites,  contain  some  particulars  which  help  to  fill 
up  our  knowledge  of  the  history  of  Israel.  Finally, 
a  few  works  of  Gentile  origin  belonging  for  the  most 
part  to  later  times,  together  with  sundry  monuments, 
inscriptions,  and  coins,  both  Israelitish  and  otherwise, 
furnish  us  with  contributions  of  more  or  less  weight 
towards  a  knowledge  of  various  periods  of  Jewish 
history. 

Of  all  these  authorities,  by  far  the  most  important 
for  us  are  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament;  not 
merely  because  there  is  a  good  deal  of  Israel's  history 
which  we  cannot  learn  anywhere  else,  but  also  because 


Sources  of  Information.  7 

it  is  only  by  reading  them  that  we  can  come  to  know 
what  were  the  peculiarities  of  its  religion,  and  how 
excellent  it  was.  Were  it  only  on  this  ground,  they 
would  deserve  a  special  and  more  detailed  examina- 
tion j  but  such  examination  is  still  more  needful, 
inasmuch  as  many  mistaken  ideas  still  prevail  about 
the  origin  and  historical  value  of  these  books,  and 
because  we  must  form,  at  any  rate,  an  approximately 
correct  conception  on  these  points  before  we  pass  on 
to  consider  the  history  itself. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   SAME   CONTINUED. 

A  CCORDING  to  the  arrangement  in  vogue  among 
"*-*•  the  Jews,  the  Old  Testament  contains,  first,  the 
Law,  secondly,  the  Prophets,  and,  thirdly,  the  Writings. 
This  arrangement  did  not  originate  in  any  simultaneous 
collecting  of  the  books  after  they  were  all  completed, 
or  in  any  very  precise  system  of  division:;  though,  in 
a  general  way,  it  is  based  upon  differences  in  charac- 
ter and  in  date.  It  was  only  by  degrees  that  men 
began  to  collect  and  arrange  the  books  already  in 
existence.  rOne  division  was  already  closed  before 
other  writings  appeared ;  and  then  these  in  their  turn 


8  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

were  subsequently  admitted  as  a  constituent  part  of 
the  whole.  But  we  shall  have  more  to  say  on  this 
subject  when  we  are  telling  how  all  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  came  to  be  collected  together. 

Christians  generally  follow  the  arrangement  given 
above.*  They  borrow  it  from  the  Latin  version  of  the 
Old  Testament  called  the  Vulgate,  which  took  it  with 
hardly  any  change  from  the  Greek  translation  known 
as  the  "  Septuagint."  On  this  basis,  we,  too,  divide 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  into  three  classes, 
grouping  them,  however,  not  in  relation  to  the  time 
when  they  were  written,  but  according  to  certain 
rough  analogies  of  character.  We  thus  have,  first, 
the  Historical  Books,  from  Genesis  to  Esther,  then 
the  Poetical  Books,  from  Job  to  Solomon's  Song,  and 
lastly,  the  Prophetic  Books,  from  Isaiah  to  Malachi. 

The  first  division  of  the  Old  Testament,  according 
to  the  Hebrew  division,  the  Law,  comprises  five  books. 
We  follow  the  example  of  the  Greek  translators,  and 
name  each  of  them  after  the  chief  thing  it  relates. 
Thus  we  call  them  Genesis  (which  means  beginning 
or  origin),  Exodus  (or  departure),  Leviticus  (or  Levi- 
tical  legislation),  Numbers,  and  Deuteronomy  (or 
repetition  of  the  law,)  because  they  tell  us  of  the 
creation  of  the  world,  the  departure  of  the  Israelites 
from  Egypt,  the  laws  for  the  priests  and  Levites,  the 
numbering  of  the  people  in  the  wilderness,  and  the 
*  See  page  2. 


Sources  of  Information.  9 

repetition  of  the  law  by  Moses  before  the  invasion 
of  Canaan.  The  whole  Law,  which  the  Jews  call 
"Thorah,"  or  teaching,  is  known  to  us  also  by  the 
name  of  Pentateuch,  which  means  "the  book  in  five 
parts." 

The  Jews  who  lived  after  the  Babylonish  captivity, 
and  the  Christians,  following  their  example,  ascribed 
these  books  to  Moses;  and  for  many  centuries  the 
notion  was  cherished  that  he  had  really  written  them. 
But  strict  and  impartial  investigation  has  shown  that 
this  opinion  must  be  given  up,  and  that  nothing  in  the 
whole  Law  really  comes  from  Moses  himself  except 
the  Ten  Commandments.  And  even  these  were  not 
delivered  by  him  in  the  same  form  as  we  find  them 
now.  If  we  still  call  these  books  by  his  name,  it  is 
only  because  the  Israelites  always  thought  of  him  as 
their  first  and  greatest  law-giver,  and  the  actual 
authors  grouped  all  their  narratives  and  laws  around 
his  figure,  and  associated  them  with  his  name. 

There  is  a  greater  variety  of  elements,  and  those, 
too,  belong  to  a  greater  variety  of  periods,  in  these 
books  of  Moses  than  in  any  other  book  in  the  Old 
Testament.  We  can  trace  three  principal  redactions 
of  the  Pentateuch ;  that  is  to  say,  the  material  was 
worked  over  and  re-edited  with  modifications  and 
additions  by  different  people,  at  three  distinct  epochs. 
The  first  redaction  was  made  about  750  years  before 
Christ.  We  generally  call  its  author  the  "  Yahwist," 
because,  from  the  very  beginning,  he  calls  God 


IO  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

"  Yahweh;"*  while  the  third  author  tells  us  that  God 
was  only  known  in  the  beginning  as  "Elohim,"  that, 
later  on,  the  Patriarchs  called  him  "  El-Shaddai,"  and 
that  Moses  was  the  first  man  to  whom  he  revealed 
himself  as  Yahweh.  For  this  reason,  this  third  author 
is  called  the  "Elohist."  The  first,  the  Yahwist,  was 
a  prophet,  who  was  able  to  use  and  weave  into  his 
work,  certain  documents  that  existed  even  before  his 
day,  such  as  the  so-called  Book  of  Covenants,  which 
is  pieced  in  at  Exodus  from  chapter  xxi.  to  chapter 
xxiii.  He  had  certain  laws  and  precepts  also ;  but  it 
was  with  the  history  of  Israel  that  he  concerned  him- 
self most.  He  begins  at  Genesis  ii.  4,  with  a  short 
account  of  the  creation ;  and  then  he  carries  the  story 
on  regularly  till  the  Israelites  enter  Canaan.  It  is 
to  him  that  we  are  indebted  for  the  charming  pictures 
of  the  patriarchs.  He  took  these  from  other  writings 
or  from  the  popular  legends.  The  principal  idea 
which  we  find  standing  out  in  his  work  is  that  Israel 
is  Yahwelrs  chosen  people. 

The  Pentateuch  remained  in  this,  its  first  form,  till 
620  years  before  Christ.  Then  a  certain  priest  of 
marked  prophetic  sympathies  wrote  a  book  of  law 
which  has  come  down  to  us  in  Deuteronomy  iv.  44  to 
xxvi.,  and  xxviii.  Here  we  find  the  demands  which 
the  Mosaic  party  of  that  day  were  making,  thrown 
into  the  form  of  laws.  It  was  by  king  Josiah  that 

*  Through  an  error,  we  pronounce  this  name  "Jehovah."  See 
pages  42,  4';  also  "The  Teachers'  Manual,"  Vol.  II.  No.  4, 
(Oct.  1873)  pages  155  to  158.  [Tr.] 


Sources  of  Information.  1 1 

this  book  was  first  introduced  and  proclaimed  as 
authoritative.  Very  soon  afterwards  the  author  him- 
self wove  it  into  the  work  of  the  Yahwist,  and  at  the 
same  time  added  a  few  new  passages,  some  of  which 
related  to  Joshua,  the  successor  of  Moses. 

Finally,  the  third  redaction  of  the  Pentateuch  was 
published  444  years  before  Christ.  At  that  time 
Ezra  added  to  the  work  of  his  two  predecessors  a 
series  of  laws  and  narratives  which  had  been  drawn 
up  by  some  of  the  priests  in  Babylon.  These  he  him- 
self revised  to  some  extent.  The  elements  thus  intro- 
duced were  of  a  priestly  character  and  comprised 
many  instructions  for  the  guidance  of  the  priests  and 
Levites,  for  offerings,  and  for  feasts,  as  well  as  regula- 
tions concerning  clean  and  unclean. 

Later  still,  a  few  more  changes  and  additions  were 
made;  and  so  the  Pentateuch  grew  into  its  present 
form. 

The  second  division  of  the  Old  Testament,  accord- 
ing to  the  Jewish  arrangement,  contained  the  prophetic 
books.  They  were  divided  into  two  parts.  The  first 
subdivision  comprised  the  "former  "prophets  :  Joshua, 
Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,  which  were  reckoned  in 
this  class  because  they  were  written  by  prophets  and 
regarded  things  from  the  prophets'  point  of  view.1* 

*  We,  however,  place  these  books  and  Ruth,  Ezra,  Nehemiah, 
Esther,  and  Chronicles  after  the  Pentateuch  and  include  them 
in  the  historical  division.  The  second  section  of  what  the  Jews 
called  the  Prophets  is  nearly  identical  with  the  whole  of  what 
we  call  by  that  name.  This  second  section  they  called  the  later 
Prophets.  [Tr.] 


12  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

The  second  subdivision  was  called  the  "later"  pro- 
phets; and  these  were  still  further  subdivided  into 
the  *' greater,"  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel,  and 
the  "minor,"  namely,  the  twelve  from  Hosea  to  Mal- 
achi.  These  fifteen  books  of  the  later  prophets  are 
chiefly  made  up  of  prophetic  discourses;  but  they 
contain  as  well  a  few  passages  of  history  —  especially 
Isaiah  and  Jeremiah.  With  regard  to  Samuel  and 
Kings  we  have  further  to  remark  that  the  Jews  did 
not  divide  them  each  into  two,  as  we  do,  but  con- 
sidered them  only  one  book.  They  treated  Chronicles 
in  the  same  way.  Thus  they  made  the  whole  number 
of  books  in  the  Old  Testament  36,  while  we  make 

it  39- 

We  shall  not  at  present  say  very  much  about  the 

origin  and  contents  of  these  books ;  but  here  is  a  word 
concerning  each : 

JOSHUA.  This  book  is  not  called  after  its  author, 
but  after  the  person  whose  deeds  it  relates.  At  first 
it  was  regarded  as  part  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  chief 
things  it  tells  of  are  the  conquest  of  Canaan  and  the 
division  of  the  territory. 

JUDGES.  The  3oth  verse  of  the  i8th  chapter  of 
this  book  makes  it  clear  that  it  was  not  written  till 
after  the  first  set  of  Israelites  had  been  carried  into 
captivity,  and  perhaps  not  till  still  later.  The  book 
comprises  a  sketch  of  the  times  between  the  conquest 
of  Canaan  and  Samuel,  with  the  exploits  of  the 
judges. 


Sources  of  Information.  13 

SAMUEL.  This  book  is  made  up  of  different  parts 
of  very  unequal  value.  It  was  written  shortly  before 
or  during  the  Babylonish  captivity,  and  relates  the 
history  of  Samuel,  Saul,  and  David. 

KINGS.  The  author  of  Kings  wrote  during  the 
Babylonish  captivity,  and  made  use  of  many  older 
materials.  He  looks  at  things  from  a  similar  point 
of  view  to  the  writer  of  Deuteronomy.  He  begins 
with  the  story  of  David's  death  and  winds  up  with  the 
devastation  of  Jerusalem. 

ISAIAH  belonged  to  a  distinguished  family,  and  in 
the  year  757  before  Christ  he  came  forward  at  Jeru- 
salem as  a  prophet.  He  saw  the  war  of  Syria  and 
Ephraim  against  Judah,  the  fall  of  Samaria,  and  the 
siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Sennacherib.  There  are  many 
passages  in  the  book  bearing  his  name,  which  are  not 
really  written  by  him.  Chapters  xxxvi.  to  xxxix., 
which  embrace  historical  narratives,  especially  that  of 
Sennacherib's  invasion  of  Judah,  belong  to  a  later 
author.  Chapters  xl.  to  Ixvi.  are  by  a  prophet  at  the 
time  of  the  captivity,  whom  we  generally  call,  for 
want  of  any  other  name,  the  second  Isaiah.  Prob- 
ably, these  prophecies  were  not  collected  together  till 
after  the  fall  of  Babylon.  The  following  passages, 
too,  belong  to  later  times:  chapters  xiii.  i  to  xiv.  23; 
xxi.  i  to  10 ;  xxiv.  to  xxvii ;  xxxiv.  and  xxxv.  Though 
they  cannot  all  be  ascribed  to  one  author,  they  all 
belong  to  the  days  of  the  captivity. 

JEREMIAH  was  of  priestly  descent,  and  appeared 


14  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

in  Jerusalem  in  the  year  626  before  Christ,  in  the 
reign  of  Josiah.  He  saw  the  fall  of  Judah,  and  stayed 
there  after  the  devastation  of  the  capital.  He  after- 
wards went  with  many  of  his  countrymen  to  Egypt, 
where  he  died.  The  two  last  chapters  of  the  book 
bearing  his  name  do  not  really  come  from  his  hand. 

EZEKIEL,  a  priest,  was  carried  off  to  Babylon 
together  with  Jehoiachin,  in  the  year  597  before 
Christ.  There  he  labored  as  a  prophet  for  twenty- 
two  years.  It  is  in  his  writings  that  we  find  the  first 
traces  of  priestly  legislation.  This  was  afterwards 
carried  out  in  much  greater  detail  by  writers  of 
kindred  mind. 

HOSEA,  who  lived  in  the  northern  kingdom,  that  of 
the  ten  tribes,  prophesied  between  the  years  775  and 
745  before  Christ,  during  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  the 
Second  and  after  his  death. 

JOEL.  It  is  uncertain  when  Joel  lived ;  he  is  prob- 
ably one  of  the  latest  of  the  prophets. 

AMOS  was  not  a  prophet  by  birth  or  education,  but 
a  herdsman  from  Tekoa,  in  Judah.  It  was  in  the 
kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  however,  that  he  came 
forward  as  a  prophet.  This  was  in  the  reign  of 
Jeroboam  the  Second,  between  790  and  780  years 
before  Christ. 

OBADIAH  prophesied  immediately  after  the  devasta- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  586  years  before  Christ. 

JONAH.  The  prophet  Jonah  is  an  historical  per- 
sonage, and  we  hear  of  him  in  2  Kings,  xiv.  25.  But 


Sources  of  Information.  1 5 

the  writer  of  the  book  of  Jonah  is  not  the  prophet, 
but  some  one  who  lived  in  the  fifth  century  before 
Christ,  and  wrote  this  wholly  fictitious  story  to  teach 
the  loving  kindness  of  Yahweh,  showing  how  it 
embraces  even  the  heathens. 

MICAH,  who  lived  at  the  same  time  as  Isaiah, 
preached  at  Jerusalem  in  the  early  part  of  Hezekiah's 
reign. 

NAHUM  announces  the  approaching  fall  of  Nineveh. 
Probably  he  was  a  contemporary  of  Josiah. 

HABAKKUK  lived  at  the  same  time  as  Jeremiah, 
and  predicted  the  judgment  of  Yahweh  on  the  Chal- 
deans. 

ZEPHANIAH  prophesied  in  the  first  half  of  Josiah's 
reign.  The  occasion  of  his  prophecy  lay  in  the 
reports  of  the  inroads  of  the  Scythians,  who  inun- 
dated Asia  as  far  as  to  the  borders  of  Egypt. 

HAGGAI  came  forward  in  the  year  520  before  Christ, 
and  vehemently  urged  that  the  rebuilding  of  the 
temple  should  be  continued. 

ZECHARIAH.  This  book  contains  utterances  by 
three  different  prophets.  The  first  of  these  wrote 
chapters  i.  to  viii.  He  was  really  the  latest  of  the 
three,  and  a  contemporary  of  Haggai,  whom  he  aided 
in  his  strenuous  efforts  to  stimulate  the  Jews  to 
rebuild  the  temple.  The  second  author,  a  contem- 
porary of  Amos,  Hosea,  and  Isaiah,  wrote  chapters 
ix.  to  xi.  It  is  likely  that  he  came  from  Judah,  but 
prophesied  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes.  The 


1 6  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

third  prophet,  who  was  the  author  of  chapters  xii.  to 
xiv.,  lived  shortly  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
at  the  same  time  with  Jeremiah  and  Habakkuk.  It 
is  not  improbable  that  it  was  the  similarity  of  name 
of  the  three  prophets  that  led  to  their  writings  being 
united  in  a  single  book. 

MALACHI.  Whoever  collected  together  the  writings 
of  the  lesser  prophets  gave  this  name  erroneously  to 
an  author  whom  we  know  nothing  about,  except  that 
he  lived  in  the  days  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and  was 
active  in  promoting  their  ideas. 

4 

The  Jews  grouped  all  the  rest  of  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  together,  and  called  them  the 
"Writings."  These  comprise  tjie  Psalms,  the  Pro- 
verbs, Job,  the  Song  of  Solomon,  Ruth,  Lamentations, 
Ecclesiastes,  Esther,  Daniel,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and 
Chronicles.*  They  called  them  simply  Writings,  to 
distinguish  them  from  the  Law  on  the  one  hand,  and 
from  the  Prophets  on  the  other.  No  doubt,  some  of 
these  writings  already  existed  when  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets  were  collected  —  for  instance,  Proverbs,  Job, 
and  the  Song  of  Solomon;  but  they  were  so  very 
different  from  them  that  it  was  felt  they  could  not  be 
put  into  the  same  class.  So  they  were  made  into  a 
separate  class ;  and  the  books  that  were  written  later, 

*  The  division  which  the  Jews  called  "  Writings  "  thus  em- 
braces some  books  which  we  are  accustomed  to  place  in  the 
historical  group,  and  two  (Lamentations  and  Daniel)  which  we 
insert  among  the  Prophets.  [Tr.] 


Sources  of  Information.  17 

whatever  their  character,  were  joined  on  to  them, 
because  it  was  considered  that  the  collection  of  the 
Prophets  was  already  closed  once  for  all. 

These  writings  vary  very  much  both  in  contents 
and  in  origin.  The  PSALMS  are  a  collection  of 
religious  songs,  composed  some  before  and  some 
after  the  captivity.  They  are  called  David's  because 
he  was  well  known  as  a  poet;  though  in  all  proba- 
bility he  did  not  write  a  single  one  of  them.  We 
count  three  different  collections :  first,  from  Psalms  i. 
to  xli.  •  secondly,  from  xlii  to  Ixxxiii. ;  and  thirdly, 
from  Ixxxiv.  to  cl.  The  collector  of  the  last  group 
lived  150  or  140  years  before  Christ.  The  whole 
collection  was  used  as  a  hymn-book  by  the  Jewish 
Church. 

The  PROVERBS  are  a  collection  of  short,  and  pithy 
moral  saws.  They  are  mistakenly  attributed  to  Solo- 
mon, but  they  were  brought  together  long  after  his 
day  by  different  people. 

The  Book  of  JOB  is  a  didactic  poem.  The  author 
relates  the  tragic  fortunes  of  the  pious  Job,  the  tradi- 
tion of  which  may  be  in  part  historical.  The 
unknown  writer's  object  is  to  discover  how  the  calami- 
ties that  befall  godly  men  can  be  reconciled  with  the 
righteousness  of  God.  But  he  cannot  solve  the 
problem  completely.  He  lived  shortly  before  the 
Babylonish  captivity. 

The  SONG  OF  SOLOMON  is  a  poem  in  which  the 
praises  of  pure  love  are  sung.  It  is  not  really  by 
3 


1 8  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

Solomon,  but  by  an  unknown  author,  who  probably 
lived  about  800  years  before  Christ. 

RUTH  contains  the  story  of  the  fortunes  of  Ruth,  a 
Moabitess,  from  whom  David  was  descended.  Prob- 
ably it  is  based  on  an  historical  tradition  and  dates 
from  after  the  time  of  Ezra. 

LAMENTATIONS  comprise  five  songs  of  mourning,  in 
which  the  deplorable  condition  of  Judah  and  Jerusa- 
lem after  they  have  been  conquered  by  Nebuchad- 
rezzar, is  sketched.  They  are  by  different  authors. 
Though  it  is  a  mistake  to  ascribe  them  to  Jeremiah, 
they  are  quite  in  his  spirit. 

ECCLESIASTES,  or  the  PREACHER,  though  it  bears 
Solomon's  name,  was  not  written  by  him.  Indeed, 
it  was  not  drawn  up  till  towards  the  end  of  the  third 
century  before  Christ.  The  author  tries  to  show  that 
everything  is  vanity  and  that  life  is  hardly  worth  any- 
thing at  all  to  men. 

The  Book  of  ESTHER  is  intended  to  explain  the 
origin  of  the  festival  of  "  Purim,"  and  to  encourage 
the  Israelites  to  adopt  it.  TMs  is  the  purpose  which 
the  tale  of  Esther's  being  made  queen  and  of  Hainan's 
revenge  is  meant  to  serve.  The  story  is  altogether 
unhistorical.  The  writer  lived  long  after  the  Baby- 
lonish captivity  and  is  quite  unknown.  His  book 
breathes  an  irreligious  spirit  full  of  the  most  narrow 
Judaism. 

DANIEL,  written  165  years  before  Christ  by  an 
unknown  author,  tries  to  encourage  the  pious  of  that 


Sources  of  Information.  19 

day  in  the  struggle  against  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and 
promises  them  a  speedy  and  complete  deliverance. 

The  book  of  Ezra,  which  was  originally  united  with 
NEHEMIAH,  relates  many  things  about  these  two  men, 
which  were  partly  written  by  themselves,  and  were 
afterward  collected  by  a  third  person  who  furnished 
sundry  explanations  and  additions  of  his  own. 

CHRONICLES  contain  an  account  of  the  history  of 
Israel  from  David  till  after  the  Babylonish  captivity. 
Though  the  writer  made  use  of  many  authorities  and 
probably  of  Samuel  and  Kings  among  the  rest,  it  is 
impossible  as  a  rule  to  rely  upon  the  information  he 
gives ;  for  he  allowed  his  religious  views  to  influence 
very  largely  his  representation  of  the  facts.  He  lived 
in  the  middle  of  the  third  century  before  Christ. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE    SAME    CONTINUED. 

1  ^ROM  what  we  have  said  about  the  dates  of  the 
•*-  historical  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  the 
reader  will  have  perceived  that  their  authors,  almost 
without  exception,  lived  many  years  and  even  many 
centuries  after  the  events  which  they  relate.  In  the 
prophets,  too,  we  find  statements  and  narratives  about 
previous  ages;  and  they  refer  to  events  in  olden 


2O  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

times  which,  in  their  own  day,  were  universally  ac- 
cepted as  facts.  Now,  when  well  informed  and  pious 
men  tell  us  anything  that  they  themselves  have  seen, 
or  inform  us  what  thoughts  they  and  the  men  of  their 
times  entertain  about  God  and  religion,  we  willingly 
receive  it  all  on  their  authority.  There  is,  indeed, 
always  a  possibility  that  they  have  made  a  mistake  in 
their  observations  or  their  reasonings ;  and  this  we 
have  to  investigate  in  each  case.  But  if  they  deserve 
credit  on  account  of  their  culture  and  character,  we 
place  confidence  in  their  testimony.  And  this  is  the 
attitude  we  assume  towards  the  writers  of  the  Bible. 

But  it  is  another  thing  when  they  tell  us  about 
earlier  times  than  their  own.  In  that  case  we  ask 
for  their  authorities,  and  want  to  know  where  they 
got  what  they  tell  us  from.  It  does  not  matter 
whether  it  be  historical  events  or  religious  ideas  that 
they  are  dealing  with.  When  prophets  or  priests, 
living  in  the  eighth  or  the  sixth  century  before  Christ, 
begin  to  tell  us  the  adventures  of  Moses  and  his 
contemporaries,  or  offer  us  accounts  of  the  religious 
conceptions  and  customs  of  the  men  of  those  early 
times,  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  for  us  to  know 
where  they  got  their  information  from.  On  this  it 
depends,  in  very  large  measure,  what  value  we  set  on 
the  information. 

Now,  it  has  been  shown  that  the  great  majority  of 
the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  have  no  other 
source  of  information  about  the  past  history  of  Israel 


Sources  of  Information.  21 

than  simple  tradition.  Indeed,  it  could  not  have 
been  otherwise ;  for  in  primitive  times  no  one  used  to 
record  anything  in  writing,  and  the  only  way  of  pre- 
serving a  knowledge  of  the  past  was  to  hand  it  down 
by  word  of  mouth.  The  father  told  the  son  what 
his  elders  had  told  him,  and  the  son  handed  it  on  to 
the  next  generation.*  In  this  way  it  was  preserved 
for  hundreds  of  years ;  and  it  was  only  at  a  compara- 
tively late  period  that  the  traditions  of  Israel  were 
written  down  in  books.  The  earliest  traces  of  such 
a  thing  belong  to  the  eighth  century  before  Christ. 

We  need  hardly  point  out  that  it  will  not  do  to 
take  for  granted  the  historical  accuracy  of  such  nar- 
ratives in  the  Bible  as  are  drawn  from  tradition,  or  to 
rely  implicitly  on  their  authority.  Although  tradition 
was  more  easily  preserved  in  olden  times  than  it 
could  be  now,  because  the  narratives  to  be  remem- 
bered all  fell  within  a  certain  limited  range  of  ideas; 
yet,  as  they  passed  from  mouth  to  mouth,  these 
narratives  were  adorned  and  enriched  with  all  kinds 
of  details,  which,  whether  they  were  added  on  purpose 
or  unconsciously,  deprived  them  of  their  historical 
character.  Narratives  of  this  sort  are  called  sagas 
or  legends. 

We  must  now  take  notice  of  another  circumstance, 

that  is  of  great  importance  in  forming  an  opinion  of 

the  sources  of   our  knowledge.     Not   only  did   the 

historians  of  Israel  draw  from  tradition  with  perfect 

*  Exod.  xii.  26;  Ps.  xliv.  I ;  Joel  i.  3. 


22  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

freedom,  and  write  down  without  hesitation  anything 
they  heard  and  what  was  current  in  the  mouths  of  the 
people,  but  they  did  not  shrink  from  modifying  their 
representation  of  the  past  in  any  way  that  they  thought 
would  be  good  and  useful.  It  is  difficult  for  us  to 
look  at  things  from  their  point  of  view,  because  our 
ideas  of  historical  good  faith  are  so  utterly  different. 
When  we  write  history,  we  know  that  we  ought  to  be 
guided  solely  by  a  desire  to  represent  facts  exactly 
as  they  really  happened.  All  that  we  are  concerned 
with  is  reality;  we  want  to  make  the  old  times  live 
again,  and  we  take  all  possible  pains  not  to  remodel 
the  past  from  the  point  of  view  of  to-day.  All  we 
want  to  know  is  what  happened,  and  how  men  lived, 
thought,  and  worked  in  those  days. 

The  Israelites  had  a  very  different  notion  of  the 
nature  of  historical  composition.  When  a  prophet 
or  a  priest  related  something  about  bygone  times,  his 
object  was  not  to  convey  knowledge  about  those 
times ;  on  the  contrary,  he  used  history  merely  as  a 
vehicle  for  the  conveyance  of  instruction  and  ex- 
hortation. Not  only  did  he  confine  his  narrative  to 
such  matters  as  he  thought  would  serve  his  purpose, 
but  he  never  hesitated  to  modify  what  he  knew  of  the 
past,  and  he  did  not  think  twice  about  touching  it  up 
from  his  own  imagination,  simply  that  it  might  be 
more  conducive  to  the  end  he  had  in  view  and  chime 
in  better  with  his  opinions.  All  the  past  became 
colored  through  and  through  with  the  tinge  of  his 


Sources  of  Information.  23 

own  mind.  Our  own  notions  of  honor  and  good 
faith  would  never  permit  all  this ;  but  we  must  not 
measure  ancient  writers  by  our  standard ;  they  con- 
sidered that  they  were  acting  quite  within  their  rights 
and  in  strict  accordance  with  duty  and  conscience. 

The  influence  exercised  by  the  writers'  opinions  on 
their  representation  of  history  differed  with  the  point 
of  view  at  which  they  stood.  When  a  prophet  was 
describing  the  events  of  the  past,  he  gave  them  quite 
a  different  complexion  to  what  a  priest  would  give  to 
the  same  facts.  As  a  proclaimer  of  the  will  of  Yahweh, 
the  prophet  sought  above  all  things  to  impress  his 
readers  deeply  with  the  might  and  majesty  of  Israel's 
God.  The  grand  point  to  be  brought  out  was  that 
Israel's  misfortunes  were  due  to*  its  neglect  of 
Yahweh's  service,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the 
nation's  only  salvation  lay  in  a  genuine  attachment 
to  the  God  of  its  fathers.  But  it  was  on  the  Law  — 
the  statutes  and  institutions  —  that  the  priest  laid 
stress.  With  him,  Israel's  salvation  depended  on  its 
faithfulness  to  this  Law;  ceremonial  cleanness  was 
the  chief  thing;  offerings  were  to  be  brought  and 
feasts  celebrated.  We  can  often  prove  from  facts 
that  the  accounts  of  former  times  have  been  com- 
pletely transformed,  since  we  now  and  then  meet  with 
two  narratives  of  the  same  thing  from  two  different 
pens.  We  have  a  notable  example  of  this  in  2  Chron- 
icles xxii.  10  to  xxiii.  21.  The  author  of  this  passage 
was  a  priest,  and  he  has  entirely  changed  the  story  as 


24  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

it  is  told  in  2  King  xi.,  to  suit  his  own  point  of  view. 
For,  according  to  his  version,  the  priests  and  Levites 
played  a  chief  part  in  raising  Joash  to  the  throne; 
while  in  the  version  given  in  the  second  book  of 
Kings  they  had  so  little  to  do  with  it  that  they  were 
not  even  mentioned.  Then,  again,  the  prophetic 
author  in  the  Pentateuch  (the  Yahwist)  tells  us  that 
Yahweh  promulgated  no  other  law  on  Mount  Sinai 
besides  the  ten  commandments ;  but  the  later  priestly 
author  makes  Yahweh  declare  to  Moses  a  whole 
series  of  other  laws  on  this  occasion.  There  are 
many  instances  of  this  kind,  and  they  show  us  how 
necessary  it  is  to  be  most  cautious  in  using  the  narra- 
tives of  writers  who  allowed  themselves  such  freedom 
in  the  treatment  of  history. 

Nothing  but  a  most  scrupulous  and  impartial  inves- 
tigation will  serve  to  separate  what  is  historical  in 
this  literature  from  what  is  unhistorical.  This  is 
essential,  before  we  can  come  to  any  true  knowledge 
of  Israel's  past.  We  must  know  what  did  really 
happen  and  what  did  not,  what  the  author  himself  is 
responsible  for  and  what  he  took  from  trustworthy 
sources.  It  is  only  when  we  have  accomplished  this 
that  we  are  in  a  position  to  form  a  correct  conception 
of  the  history  of  Israel. 

What  has  been  said,  however,  by  no  means  prevents 
the  unhistorical  parts  from  helping  us,  just  as  much 
as  the  historical  parts,  in  understanding  the  gradual 
progress  of  Israel  in  religious  thought  and  feeling. 


Sources  of  Information.  25 

It  is  true  that  the  unhistorical  parts  do  not  really 
teach  us  anything  concerning  those  times  which  the 
writer  wishes  to  inform  us  about ;  but  they  do  enable 
us  to  understand  the  opinions  entertained  by  the 
writer  himself  and  generally  held  in  his  own  day. 
For  example,  all  the  stories  about  the  patriarchs 
belong  to  a  much  later  period  and  are  quite  unhis- 
torical. They  do  not  really  teach  us  anything  at  all 
about  the  patriarchs  themselves,  and  are  utterly  worth- 
less as  authorities  about  those  ancient  times.  But 
they  do  acquaint  us  with  the  opinions  which  the 
author  and  his  contemporaries  entertained  as  to  those 
times.  They  show  us  what  Israel  thought  about  the 
days  that  were  gone  by;  and  in  this  way  we  get  to 
know  by  their  help  what  were  the  religious  views 
current  at  a  much  later  time  than  that  of  which  they 
treat,  but  a  time  no  less  interesting  to  us.  Every 
legend  or  myth  is  a  witness  about  the  author  and  his 
times,  just  as  much  as  a  real  historical  narrative 
would  be. 

The  Old  Testament  is  rich  alike  in  legends  and  in 
myths.*  We  may  take  as  examples  the  stories  of  the 
first  human  pair,  the  fall,  Cain  and  Abel,  the  deluge, 
the  tower  of  Babel,  God's  appearance  to  Abraham, 
and  Jacob's  wrestling.  These  stories  have  no  his:- 

*  In  his  former  work,  on  the  pre-Christian  religions  outside 
Israel,  our  author  says :  "  Myths  are  stories  which  express  some 
religious  idea  in  such  form  as  to  introduce  the  powers  of  nature 
or  the  gods  playing  some  part  in  the  events  narrated."  See  also, 
"The  Bible  for  Young  People,"  Vol.  I.,  pages  5  to  n,  on 
"  myths  "  and  "  legends."  [Tr.] 

4 


26  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

torical  foundation  whatever;  but,  nevertheless,  they 
give  us  an  insight  into  the  religious  conceptions  of 
the  ancient  Israelites. 

And  here  we  must  not  forget  to  speak  of  the 
exceeding  value  which  many  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment have  for  us,  quite  independently  of  their  impor- 
tance for  the  history  of  Israel  and  the  Israelitish 
religion.  In  many  of  these  books  there  breathes  a 
pure  and  lofty  religious  spirit,  which  can  hardly  fail 
to  arouse  and  to  invigorate  our  own  religious  life. 
They  are  written  by  good  and  pious  men,  and  often 
glow  with  a  passionate,  burning  love  of  God  and  his 
Law.  They  introduce  us  to  men  whom  we  may  well 
take  as  examples  in  the  difficult  battle  of  life.  It  is 
true  that  this  cannot  be  said  of  all  the  books ;  some 
of  them  are  of  no  interest  except  from  an  historical 
point  of  view,  and  give  us  no  moral  or  spiritual  food 
at  all.  But  in  many  others  —  the  Pentateuch,  the 
prophets,  Job,  the  Psalms  —  there  are  passages  which 
reveal  pure  enthusiasm,  strong  sense  of  duty,  or  burn- 
ing devotion  to  Yahweh.  Such  utterances  as  these 
can  never  fail  to  nourish  the  noblest  dispositions  in 
the  reader's  heart. 


The  Tribes  in  Goshen.  27 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   TRIBES    IN   GOSHEN. 

r  I  ""HE  history  of  the  religion  of  Israel  must  start 
-*-  from  the  sojourn  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt. 
Formerly  it  was  usual  to  take  a  much  earlier  starting- 
point,  and  to  begin  with  a  discussion  of  the  religious 
ideas  of  the  patriarchs.  And  this  was  perfectly  right, 
so  long  as  the  accounts  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob 
were  considered  historical.  But  now  that  a  strict 
investigation  has  shown  us  that  all  these  stories  are 
entirely  unhistorical,  of  course  we  have  to  begin  the 
history  later  on.  About  the  times  which  preceded 
the  sojourn  of  the  Israelites  in  Goshen,  we  can  only 
make  more  or  less  likely  guesses.  Of  the  sojourn 
itself,  however,  we  know  a  few  circumstances  with 
certainty;  and  from  that  time  forward  we  can  trace 
the  course  of  Israel's  religious  progress  pretty  regu- 
larly. 

Besides  the  accounts  of  the  patriarchs,  we  find  in 
the  book  of  Genesis  many  other  stories  which  carry 
us  back  to  the  creation  of  the  world.  For  Israel  was 
not  content  with  picturing  its  own  origin,  but,  like  all 
other  ancient  peoples,  constructed  myths  or  gave  play 
to  its  imagination  about  the  creation  of  the  universe, 


28  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

the  first  human  beings,  and  the  primitive  races  and 
their  fortunes.  Some  of  the  stories  on  these  matters 
are  very  old  and  were  borrowed  by  the  writers  from 
traditions,  while  others  are  of  more  recent  date  and 
were  invented  by  the  authors  themselves. 

We  shall  not  here  discuss  what  is  said  of  the  prim- 
itive men  and  races ;  but  we  must  make  a  remark  or 
two  about  the  accounts  of  the  patriarchs.  The  Israel- 
ites had  similar  ideas  about  the  origin  of  their  nation, 
to  those  which  we  find  among  other  peoples.  Thus, 
it  was  generally  supposed  that  a  nation  sprang  from 
a  single  ancestor,  and  that  tribes  which  were  akin 
to  each  other  owed  their  origin  to  the  same  ancestor; 
and  in  this  way  the  Israelites  thought  that  the  twelve 
tribes  which  made  up  their  ^nation  were  descended 
from  twelve  brothers,  who  were  sons  of  one  father. 
Such  tribes  as  were  in  any  way  still  more  closely  con- 
nected had  the  same  mother  too ;  and  those  tribes 
which  were  rather  looked  down  upon,  are,  according 
to  the  tradition,  children  of  concubines.  This  is  how 
we  get  the  stories  about  Jacob  or  Israel  with  his  two 
wives  and  two  concubines. 

Again,  the  Israelitish  people  was  closely  related 
to  the  people  of  Edom.  But  this  name  stands  for 
the  same  as  that  of  Esau.  The  result  of  this  is  that 
the  forefathers,  Jacob  and  Esau,  were  regarded  as 
brothers ;  and  Esau  was  the  elder,  because  the  Edom- 
ites  had  had  a  settled  habitation  and  had  been  regularly 
established  under  kings  earlier  than  the  Israelites. 


The  Tribes  in  Goshen.      -*  29 

But  Esau  was  also  the  inferior  in  rank,  because  with 
its  own  people  Israel  naturally  stood  in  higher  repute 
than  Edom.  Isaac  is  the  father  of  these  two  tribal 
fathers.  Once  more,  Israel  was  conscious  that  it  was 
related  to  the  Ishmaelites,  who  dwelt  in  Arabia,  and 
so  their  supposed  forefather,  Ishmael,  becomes  Isaac's 
brother ;  but,  to  signify  that  he  was  not  held  in  such 
high  repute,  his  mother  is  made  a  slave,  Hagar.  But 
then,  again,  Isaac  and  Ishmael  must  have  the  same 
father,  —  namely,  Abraham;  and  he,  according  to  a 
later  account,  is  the  forefather  of  other  less  important 
Arab  tribes,  called  Midianites,  Dedanites,  and  so  forth. 
Their  mother  was  called  Keturah,  which  means 
"incense,"  because  the  Arabs  dwelt  in  the  land  of 
incense.  The  Ammonites  and  Moabites,  too,  were 
related  to  the  Israelites,  and  they  likewise  obtain  a 
place  in  the  genealogy,  and  are  sons  of  Lot,  himself 
a  son  of  Abraham's  brother.  In  this  way  all  the 
mutually  related  tribes  are  made  descendants  of  one 
man,  Terah,  Abraham's  father  and  Lot's  grandfather. 
They  are,  therefore,  called  by  the  common  name  of 
Terachites. 

As  we  have  already  said,  we  find  similar  represen- 
tations among  other  peoples  also.  The  Hellenes  — 
or  Greeks,  as  we  generally  call  them  —  had  their 
imaginary  forefather,  Hellen,  the  son  of  Deucalion 
and  father  of  ^Eolus,  Dorus,  and  Xuthus.  Xuthus, 
again,  was  the  father  of  Ion  and  Achaeus.  Thus  they 
explained  the  connection  of  the  four  great  divisions 


3O  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

of  the  Greeks,  the  ^Eolians,  Dorians,  lonians,  and 
Achaeans.  In  the  same  way,  the  Batavians  were  con- 
sidered descendants  of  Bato,  and  the  Frisians  of 
Friso.  But,  however  simple  such  explanations  may 
seem,  they  are  utterly  unhistorical.  That  is  not  how 
nations  arise.  By  slow  degrees  families  unite ;  tribes 
migrate  and  intermarry.  Through  strife  and  conquest 
some  become  masters  and  others  slaves;  and  thus, 
out  of  very  diverse  elements  a  nation  is  compounded, 
till  a  time  comes  when  it  is  no  longer  possible  to 
distinguish  all  the  separate  elements.  The  Old  Testa- 
ment itself  gives  us  ample  ground  to  go  upon  in  this 
matter;  so  that  the  fact  is  firmly  established,  that 
these  forefathers  did  not  call  the  nation  into  being, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  the  nation,  in  trying  to  imagine 
its  own  history,  called  these  forefathers  into  being. 

In  saying  this,  we  do  not  mean  to  assert,  that  there 
can  be  nothing  historical  underlying  all  these  narra- 
tives in  Genesis.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  quite 
possible,  in  the  abstract,  that  there  may  have  been 
men  who  bore  these  names.  But,  if  so,  they  were 
not  the  fathers  of  the  tribes,  nor  did  they  play  the 
part  which  Genesis  assigns  to  them.  And,  indeed, 
their  very  existence  remains  a  mere  supposition,  and 
does  not  help  us  with  the  history  of  Israel.  But  it  is 
another  thing  when  we  find  certain  indications  in 
these  traditions,  which  do  give  us  at  least  some  hint 
about  Israel's  origin.  From  them  we  gather  that,  in 
very  ancient  times,  Semitic  tribes  traveled  westward 


The  Tribes  in  Goshen.  31 

from  Mesopotamia.  Some  stayed  in  Canaan  or  on 
the  further  side  of  the  Jordan  and  in  Arabia.  Others, 
again,  strengthened  by  a  fresh  migration  from  the  old 
home,  and  perhaps  preceded  by  a  single  tribe,  went 
on  to  Egypt  and  established  themselves  in  Goshen, 
the  northeast  part  of  that  country.  This  is  the  only 
thing  that  we  are  able  to  affirm  about  the  origin  of 
Israel. 

According  to  the  tradition  preserved  in  Genesis,  it 
was  the  promotion  of  Jacob's  son,  Joseph,  to  be 
viceroy  of  Egypt,  that  brought  about  the  migration  of 
the  sons  of  Israel  from  Canaan  to  Goshen.  The  story 
goes,  that  this  Joseph  was  sold  as  a  slave  by  his 
brothers,  and  after  many  changes  of  fortune  received 
the  vice-regal  office  at  Pharaoh's  hands  through  his 
skill  in  interpreting  dreams.  Famine  drives  his 
brothers  —  and  afterwards  his  father  —  to  him,  and 
the  Egyptian  prince  gives  them  the  land  of  Goshen 
to  live  in. 

It  is  by  imagining  all  this  that  the  legend  tries  to 
account  for  the  fact  that  Israel  passed  some  time  in 
Egypt.  But  we  must  look  for  the  real  explanation  in 
a  migration  of  certain  tribes  which  could  not  estab- 
lish or  maintain  themselves  in  Canaan,  and  were 
forced  to  move  further  on.  We  find  a  passage  in 
Flavius  Josephus,  from  which  it  appears  that  in 
Egypt,  too,  a  recollection  survived  of  the  sojourn  of 
some  foreign  tribes  in  the  north-eastern  district  of  the 


32  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

country.  For  this  writer  gives  us  two  fragments  out 
of  a  lost  work  by  Manetho,  a  priest,  who  lived  about 
250  years  before  Christ.  In  one  of  these  we  have  a 
statement  that  pretty  nearly  agrees  with  the  Israel- 
itish  tradition  about  a  sojourn  in  Goshen.  But  the 
Israelites  were  looked  down  on  by  the  Egyptians 
as  foreigners,  and  they  are  represented  as  lepers  and 
unclean.  Moses  himself  is  mentioned  by  name,  and 
we  are  told  that  he  was  a  priest  and  joined  himself 
to  these  lepers  and  gave  them  laws. 

Josephus  himself  wants  to  identify  the  well-known 
"  Hyksos  "  or  shepherd-kings  who  ruled  over  Egypt 
for  a  time,  with  the  Israelites.  He  is  led  into  this 
opinion  by  his  desire  to  glorify  Israel.  But  it  is  a 
mistake  ;  for  the  probability  is  that  the  Israelites 
never  entered  Egypt  till  after  the  Hyksos  had  been 
driven  away, — that  is  to  say,  till  after  the  year  1600 
before  Christ.  But  we  cannot  yet  say  for  certain 
when  they  came  to  Egypt ;  and  so,  we  cannot  say  how 
long  they  stayed  there.  The  Old  Testament  says  430 
years ;  but  it  cannot  have  been  so  long. 

The  children  of  Israel  were  terribly  oppressed  by 
the  Egyptians,  at  any  rate  during  the  latter  part  of 
their  stay.  They  had  to  do  slaves'  work  in  the 
quarries,  and  were  employed  in  building  two  fortified 
cities,  Rameses  and  Pithom.  We  may  be  sure  that 
this  oppression  drew  the  tribes  closer  to  each  other. 
It  did  not,  indeed,  draw  them  so  close  that  we  could 
speak  of  the  Israelites,  while  still  in  Goshen,  as  one 


The  Tribes  in  Goshen.  33 

people ;  but  still  the  mutual  ties,  which  had  hitherto 
been  exceedingly  weak,  were  now  strengthened,  and 
the  recollection  of  the  oppression  and  of  the  subse- 
quent exodus  afterwards  tended  powerfully  to  call 
out  and  invigorate  the  feeling  of  relationship  and 
sympathy. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE   SAME   CONTINUED. 

"\  T  7"E  must  now  proceed  to  consider  the  religion  of 
*  *  the  Israelites  in  the  oldest  form  in  which  it  is 
known  to  us.  From  what  has  been  said,  it  is  clear 
that  we  must  once  for  all  dismiss  the  common  idea 
that  this  religion  was  regularly  handed  down  from 
Adam  to  Noah,  from  Shem  to  Abraham  and  the 
patriarchs,  and  from  these  to  Moses.  Everything 
that  is  said  to  that  effect  in  the  Old  Testament  is 
quite  unhistorical.  Indeed,  even  of  the  religion  of 
the  tribes  when  in  Goshen  we  know  very  little,  and 
that  little  we  have  to  make  out  from  later  accounts, 
or  even  to  infer  to  a  considerable  extent  from  what 
we  know  of  the  popular  religion  in  the  eighth  and 
seventh  centuries  before  Christ,  which  of  course  had 
its  roots  in  the  past,  and  gives  us  some  evidence  of 
what  that  must  have  been. 


34  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

In  this  way  we  discover  that  the  religion  of  the  sons 
of  Israel  was  originally  Fetishism,  and  that  out  of 
this  Fetishism  there  slowly  grew  a  Nature-worship, 
just  as  happened  with  the  rest  of  the  Semites.*  We 
still  find  traces  of  the  former  in  what  the  Old  Testa- 
ment tells  us  of  the  reverence  paid  to  holy  trees  and 
stones.  It  is  true  that  it  is  made  to  appear  as  if 
these  stones  were  dedicated  to  Yahweh ;  but  this  is  to 
be  explained  by  the  subsequent  desire  of  the  writers 
of  the  Bible  to  bring  all  the  idolatry  that  still  sur- 
vived in  the  popular  religion,  into  connection  with 
the  worship  of  Yahweh  by  way  of  consecrating  it. 
They  could  not  exterminate  it,  and  so  they  did  their 
best  to  change  its  meaning.  It  was  only  on  such 
conditions  that  these  remnants  of  the  old  popular 
religion  could  still  be  tolerated  at  all.  But  they  do 
not  really  fit  in  with  the  service  of  Yahweh,  as  it  was 
afterwards  understood,  and  they  can  only  be  ex- 
plained as  a  relic  from  primitive  times.  In  later  ages 
the  Christian  missionaries,  in  many  parts  of  Europe, 
followed  the  example  of  the  Israelitish  writers:  to 

*In  his  former  work  our  author  writes:  "Fetishism  is  the 
least  advanced  stage  of  religion  known  to  us.  The  name  is 
given  to  the  religion  of  those  savage  tribes  which  regard  all 
objects  as  endowed  with  life  like  that  of  men,  but  of  different 
degrees  of  power."  "  Nature  worship  "  is  the  worship  of  the 
various  powers  of  nature ;  and  our  author  elsewhere  states  that, 
while  the  Aryan  races  worshiped  those  powers  as  manifested 
in  the  phenomena  of  nature  and  intimately  bound  up  with  them, 
the  Semites,  the  stock  to  which  the  Israelites  belonged,  wor- 
shiped those  powers  as  terrible  and  destroying  gods,  —  lords 
or  kings  standing  above  nature  and  more  clearly  distinguished 
from  it  than  was  the  case  among  the  Aryans.  [Tr.] 


The  Tribes  in  Cos  hen.  35 

those  heathen  practices  which  they  found  themselves 
unable  to  exterminate,  they  gave  a  Christian  coloring 
and  a  Christian  interpretation. 

When  the  religion  of  a  people  rises  to  a  higher 
level,  the  old  ideas  and  forms  survive  for  centuries 
beside  the  new.  We  find  this  general  law  exempli- 
fied all  through  the  history  of  Israel.  Here  the 
popular  belief  was  unusually  strong,  so  that  we 
cannot  be  surprised  at  coming  upon  the  traces  of  the 
ancient  religion  even  in  much  later  times.  But  this 
must  by  no  means  blind  us  to  the  fact  that  fetishism 
grew  into  nature-worship  in  very  early  days.  It  is 
certain  that  the  Israelites  had  already  advanced  to 
nature-worship  when  they  were  in  Goshen.  The 
general  character  of  the  religion  of  the  sons  of 
Israel  was  like  that  of  the  rest  of  the  Semites;  but 
they  modified  it  in  their  own  way.  The  Semites  used 
to  draw  a  contrast  between  the  power  of  nature 
regarded  as  the  source  of  life  and  blessing,  and  the 
same  power  regarded  as  the  cause  of  death  and 
destruction.  Among  the  Edomites,  Ishmaelites,  Am- 
monites, and  Moabites  —  the  tribes  with  which  Israel 
felt  itself  most  nearly  related  —  the  service  of  the 
rigorous  and  destroying  god  was  most  prominent. 
The  very  names  for  God  which  are  most  common 
among  them  —  Baal,  El,  Molech,  Milcom,  and  Che- 
mosh  —  are  enough  to  show  this.  These  names  all 
denote  the  mighty,  violent,  death-dealing  god.  It  is 


36  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

true  that  these  tribes  also  worshiped  the  powers  of 
nature  which  confer  life  and  blessing,  but  only  in  the 
second  place.  We  know,  from  the  character  of  their 
national  god,  that  the  Israelites  formed  no  exception 
in  this  matter;  for,  in  early  times,  he  was  regarded  as 
a  god  of  light  and  fire,  who  was  to  be  greatly  feared, 
and  was  propitiated  by  human  sacrifices.  The  god  of 
Israel  was  originally  closely  allied  in  character  with 
the  Canaanitish  or  Phoenician  Molech.  Hence  he 
was  worshiped  in  the  likeness  of  a  bull,  as  an 
emblem  of  the  power  of  the  sun,  so  mighty  to 
destroy.  Thus  Molech,  too,  was  represented  with  a 
bull's  head,  and  a  bull's  horns  were  always  given  to 
Astarte.  With  this,  also,  are  connected  the  bull's 
horns  which  we  find  on  Yahweh's  altar  in  later  times, 
and  the  twelve  oxen  which  support  the  molten  sea.* 
The  cherubs,  too,  on  which  Yahweh  sits,  are  of  Phoeni- 
cian origin,  and  represent  the  heavy  thunder-clouds 
which  hide  the  Thunderer  from  the  eyes  of  men.  The 
representations  of  flowers  and  fruits  which  Solomon 
put  in  the  temple  are  in  the  same  way  symbols  of  the 
life  of  nature  as  awakened  by  the  sun-god.  More- 
over, by  the  side  of  Yahweh's  altar  we  have  what  are 
called  "  asheras,"  which  are  lopped  stems  of  trees 
and  symbols  of  the  goddess  Ashera,  the  female  side 
of  the  beneficent  sun-god;  and  "chamanim,"  or  sun- 
images,  which  represent  the  rays  of  the  sun  in  the  shape 
of  a  cone.  All  this  shows  that  Israel's  god  was 
*  I  Kings,  vii.  23,  25. 


The  Tribes  in  Goshen.  37 

originally  regarded  as  a  god  of  light  and  of  fire,  and 
differed  little  or  nothing  in  character  from  the  rest  of 
the  gods  of  the  Semites.  But  in  the  conception  of 
Yahweh,  as  the  stern  and  terrible  god,  lay  the  germ 
of  the  higher  conception  which  afterwards  grew  out 
of  it.  He  is  pure  and  holy ;  no  man  can  see  him  and 
live.  The  first-born  are  his  rightful  property ;  circum- 
cision, which  was  afterwards  the  sign  of  the  covenant, 
was  originally  a  bloody  offering  for  the  propitiation  of 
a  god  of  terror.  All  this  shows  that  the  children  of 
Israel  were  profoundly  impressed  with  the  might  of 
their  national  god :  an  impression  which  could  not 
fail  to  bring  them  by  and  by  to  a  loftier  conception 
of  his  nature.  Through  the  notion  that  the  best  and 
dearest  must  be  given  up  to  the  strong  and  mighty 
god,  the  belief  in  his  holiness  was  cultivated  and 
strengthened.  More  and  more  did  men  come  to  see 
that  nothing  could  serve  such  a  god  save  holiness 
and  a  strict  morality;  his  claims  exceeded  those  of 
other  gods,  and  he  was  gradually  contrasted  with 
them  and  placed  above  them  in  the  thoughts  of  his 
truest  servants,  and  at  last  he  came  to  be  looked 
upon  as  the  only  one  that  really  existed  and  was  wor- 
shiped as  such,  whilst  the  others  were  considered  to 
be  false  gods  which  did  not  really  exist.  This  pure 
monotheism  is  the  fruit  of  the  whole  process  of  Israel's 
development,  and  it  was  not  distinctly  and  definitely 
expressed  till  the  eighth  century  before  Christ.  But 
the  germ  of  it  lay  in  the  original  form  of  Israel's 


38  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

nature-worship,  by  means  of  which,  under  favorable 
circumstances,  this  people  were  enabled  to  rise  far 
above  the  rest  of  the  Semites. 

According  to  the  writer  who  put  the  Pentateuch 
into  its  final  shape,  the  name  of  Israel's  chief  or 
tribal  god,  El-Shaddai,  was  afterwards  changed  by 
Moses  into  Yahweh.  We  are  told  that  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  even  in  their  days,  called  their  god 
El-Shaddai.*  This  word  means  the  Mighty  One  or  the 
Strong  One,  and  it  implies  that  the  tribes  ascribed  the 
character  to  him  that  we  have  explained  above.  What 
customs,  and  offerings,  and  festivals  may  have  been 
associated  with  the  service  of  El-Shaddai,  we  do  not 
know. 

Other  gods,  besides  the  chief  one,  were  honored. 
First  came  the  stars,  and  especially  the  planet  Saturn, 
which  the  Israelites  called  Kewan.  To  Kewan  the 
seventh  day  was  dedicated.  Very  likely  other  planets, 
too,  were  worshiped,  and  the  festival  of  the  new 
moon  belonged  to  the  old  nature-worship.  Besides 
this,  each  tribe  must  have  had  its  own  special  god  or 
gods.  Later  on  we  find  mention  of  "  teraphim,"  a 
kind  of  household  gods.  They  were  consulted  about 
coming  events,  and  were  worshiped  as  beneficent 
powers.  But  it  is  uncertain  whether  they  were  wor- 
shiped so  far  back  as  the  sojourn  in  Goshen. 

And  this  meagre  account  is  all  that  our  sources  of 
information  enable  us  to  give  of  the  primitive  religion 
*  Exodus  vi.  3. 


Moses.  39 

of  the  Israelites.  It  will  be  enough  to  keep  in  mind 
that  their  polytheism  had  a  chief  god,  and  that  they 
had  a  very  solemn  conception  of  his  nature;  while 
his  worship  was  the  bond  that  held  the  tribes  together. 
And  now  we  have  to  fix  our  attention  on  the  man 
who  is  renowned  as  Israel's  deliverer  and  lawgiver. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

MOSES. 

A  S  we  have  already  related,  the  sons  of  Israel 
-£^-  were  cruelly  oppressed  during  the  latter  part 
of  their  sojourn  in  Egypt.  It  is  constantly  becoming 
more  certain  that  it  was  Rameses  the  Second  who 
began  this  oppression.  Remains  have  been  discovered 
of  Rameses,  one  of  the  two  cities  built  by  the  Israel- 
ites. These  remains  confirm  us  in  the  belief  that 
Rameses  II.  was  its  founder,  and  consequently 
that  the  oppression  took  place  in  his  time.  Under 
his  son  and  successor,  Menephtha,  the  escape  of 
the  Israelites  known  as  the  Exodus  took  place.  This 
was  about  1320  years  before  Christ. 

According  to  the  account  in  the  book  of  Exodus, 
the  oppression  came  to  a  climax  when  the  king 
issued  an  edict  that  all  the  new-born  sons  of  the 
Israelites  should  be  drowned  in  the  Nile.  But  one 


4O  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

of  these  lads  was  rescued  in  an  extraordinary  manner 
and  brought  up  at  court  by  the  king's  daughter. 
His  name  was  Moses,  and  he  was  the  son  of  Amram 
and  Jochebed,  of  the  tribe  of  Levi.  Destiny  had 
appointed  him  to  be  the  deliverer  of  Israel.  When 
he  was  forty  years  old  he  was  obliged  to  flee  from 
Egypt,  and  he  betook  himself  to  Jethro,  a  priest 
of  Midian.  He  married  Jethro's  daughter,  Zipporah, 
and  for  a  long  time  tended  his  father-in-law's  flocks 

o 

in  the  desert.  Then  God  appeared  to  him  in  a  burn- 
ing bush,  and  charged  him  to  deliver  Israel  from 
Egyptian  bondage.  Moses  goes  to  the  king  and  begs 
permission  to  lead  forth  his  people  to  the  wilderness, 
that  they  may  hold  a  religious  festival  there.  At  first 
the  monarch  hesitates,  but  he  is  afterwards  forced  to 
let  the  people  go,  by  means  of  ten  horrible  calamities 
or  plagues.  Israel  quits  Goshen  in  hot  haste,  and 
presses  towards  the  wilderness  of  Arabia.  But  now 
the  Egyptian  king  repents  of  the  permission  which 
had  been  wrung  from  him,  and  is  for  bringing  the 
Israelites  back  by  force.  He  pursues  them,  and 
would  certainly  have  subdued  them  again,  had  not 
Moses,  by  Yahweh's  command,  waved  his  staff  over 
the  Gulf  of  Suez,  and  caused  the  waters  to  separate, 
so  that  the  Israelites  could  cross  and  reach  the  other 
side  dry-footed,  while  Pharaoh  and  his  soldiers,  who 
were  pursuing  the  fugitives,  met  with  a  miserable  death 
in  the  waters,  which  flowed  back  into  their  place  at  a 
second  command  from  Moses.  Thus  was  Israel  lib- 
erated by  the  mighty  hand  of  Yahweh. 


Moses.  41 

This  story,  which  was  not  written  till  more  than 
five  hundred  years  after  the  exodus  itself,  can  lay  no 
claim  to  be  considered  historical.  The  exodus  itself 
remains  a  firmly  established  historical  fact.  All  the 
prophets,  including  the  very  oldest  of  them,  speak  of 
it  as  a  thing  universally  known  and  believed.  For 
the  same  reason  it  is  certain  that  Moses,  Amram's 
son,  was  the  soul  of  the  whole  movement,  and  the 
leader  of  the  people.  He  stirred  up  the  tribes  to 
resume  the  old  roaming  life  and  to  forsake  their 
settled  dwellings  in  Egypt.  That  his  enterprise 
would  meet  with  opposition  on  the  part  of  the 
Egyptians  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable.  The 
narrative  of  the  priest,  Manetho,  which  we  have 
already  mentioned,  also  confirms  the  main  fact  of  the 
exodus;  and  he,  too,  names  Moses  as  the  leader  of 
the  people.  The  main  fact,  however,  is  all  that  we 
know.  Of  the  circumstances  which  may  have  accom- 
panied the  exodus  we  have  no  knowledge  whatever.., 

From  the  nature  of  the  case,  we  may  infer  that 
Moses  laid  the  utmost  stress  on  the  religious  signifi- 
cance of  the  escape  from  Egypt.  The  contest  against 
the  alien  nation  was  a  contest  between  the  god  of  the 
confederated  Israelites  and  the  gods  of  the  Egyptians. 
Moses  must  greatly  have  quickened  the  people's  love" 
for  their  common  god ;  and  his  successful  efforts  must 
have  impressed  the  sons  of  Israel  deeply  with  the 
superiority  of  Yahweh's  might  over  that  of  the  foreign 
gods.  When  the  tribes  found  themselves  in  the  wilder- 
6 


42  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

ness — free  men,  delivered  from  the  yoke  of  their 
oppressors,  they  must  have  felt  that  they  were  bound 
by  closer  ties  than  ever  before  to  that  faithful  and 
mighty  god. 

Throughout  all  the  ages  that  followed,  Israel  stead- 
fastly cherished  the  memory  of  this  deliverance  from 
Egypt.  In  later  times  the  Israelites  began  to  associate 
the  celebration  of  the  Paschal  feast  —  or  Passover  — 
with  that  recollection.  But  we  must  not  go  into  the 
origin  and  meaning  of  this  festival  at  present. 

It  is  represented  in  the  Old  Testament  that  the  god 
of  Israel  was  never  called  "  Yahweh"  till  the  time  of 
Moses.  Moses  was  the  first  to  whom  El-Shaddai,  the 
god  of  the  patriarchs  —  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob — made  himself  known  as  "Yahweh."*  The 
only  explanation  of  such  a  statement  is  that  Moses 
proclaimed  the  national  god  by  this  new  name;  and 
no  doubt  there  went  along  with  this  a  fresh  interpreta- 
tion and  conception  of  the  nature  of  this  god.  We 
are  not  quite  certain  of  the  meaning  or  of  the  pronun- 
ciation of  this  name,  "Yahweh."  We  have  been 
accustomed  to  say  "Jehovah;"  a  form  which  we  have 
constructed  by  adding  the  vowels  of  Adonai  (pro- 
nounced, Edona),  namely,  e,  o,  and  a,  to  the  consonants 
JHVH,  these  four  letters  being  all  that  is  written  in 
the  original  Hebrew.  This  combination  arose  from 
the  fact  that  the  Israelites  themselves  always  re- 
frained from  uttering  the  proper  name  JHVH,  saying 
*  Exodus  iii.  i  to  14;  vi.  2,  3. 


Moses.  43 

"  Adonai"  (which  is  Hebrew  for  "the  Lord")  instead. 
And  in  our  authorized  English  bibles  the  confusion 
is  kept  up  by  JHVH  always  being  wrongly  trans- 
lated "  the  Lord."  The  vowels  which  really  belong 
to  JHVH  are  a  and  e.* 

As  for  the  meaning  of  this  name,  even  the  old 
Israelites  themselves  could  only  guess  at  it.  What  is 
certain  is  this,  that  the  word  is  connected  with  the 
verb  "To  BE."  But,  granting  that,  this  derivative 
word,  Yahweh,  may  either  signify,  "He  who  is/'  or 
"He  who  MAKES  to  be,"  which  would  mean,  "the 
Life-giver."  The  writer  of  the  third  chapter  of  Exo- 
dus thinks  that  the  name  refers  to  the  unchanging 
and  faithful  character  of  Yahweh,  but  it  is  certain 
that  no  such  meaning  is  directly  involved  in  it.  Our 
best  plan  will  be  not  to  look  for  any  fixed  and  sharply 
defined  meaning  in  it,  as  if  Moses  had  devised  a  new 
name  for  the  national  God,  expressing  the  precise 
idea  which  he  held  of  his  nature.  It  is  better  to  try 
to  make  out  what  conceptions  he  had,  without  expect- 
ing to  get  too  much  out  of  the  etymology  of  the  word. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  Moses  may  have  bor- 
rowed a  good  deal  of  his  religion  from  the  Egyptians. 
In  support  of  this,  the  account  of  his  being  brought 
up  by  Pharaoh's  daughter  has  been  quoted  from 
Exodus  ii.  10,  to  which  was  afterwards  added  (see 

*  This  makes  "  Jahveh."  But  in  English  we  get  nearer  to 
what  was  most  likely-  the  true  pronunciation  by  writing  this, 
"  Yahweh."  Accordingly,  we  have  adopted  this  form  in  the 
text.  [Tr.j 


44  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

Acts  vii.  21,  22),  that  he  was  instructed  in  all  the 
wisdom  of  the  Egyptians ;  and,  again,  we  have  been 
reminded  of  the  agreement  between  many  of  the 
ideas  and  customs  of  the  Israelites  and  those  of  the 
Egyptians.  Some  have  even  thought  that  the  mean- 
ing of  the  name  Yahweh  had  an  Egyptian  origin ;  and 
it  is  pointed  out  that  the  ark,  the  dress  of  the  priests, 
the  bull-worship,  and  many  of  the  moral  laws  and 
commandments  are  found  among  the  Egyptians  too. 
But  it  is  not  very  likely  that  Moses,  who,  after  a 
violent  contest,  wrested  Israel  out  of  the  power  of 
Egypt  —  Moses,  who  represented  this  struggle  as  a 
struggle  between  the  god  of  Israel  and  the  gods  of 
Egypt,  would  borrow  much  of  his  religion  from  the 
religion  of  his  enemies.  We  do  not  mean  to  say  that 
no  traces  of  Egyptian  influence  can  be  pointed  out  in 
Israel.  In  the  sphere  of  morals,  at  any  rate,  such  an 
influence  cannot  be  denied.  Whole  centuries  before 
the  exodus,  the  Egyptians  had  attained  to  an  advanced 
and  exceptionally  pure  morality;  and  we  find  note- 
worthy instances  of  agreement  with  the  Egyptian 
code  among  the  laws  of  the  Israelites.  Accordingly, 
we  may  well  suppose  that  Moses  adopted  some  of 
these  lofty  precepts,  and  announced  them  to  Israel  as 
the  commandments  of  his  god.  But,  though  we  have 
to  allow  that  he  borrowed  from  Egypt  here  and  there, 
it  still  remains  part  of  the  original  and  peculiar 
essence  of  his  religion,  that  he  connected  the  moral 
law  itself  directly  with  the  nature  of  Israel's  God. 


Moses.  45 

Moses  not  only  preached  Yah weh  as  the  god  of 
Israel,  but  he  wished  the  tribes  to  worship  this  god  in 
contrast  to,  and  to  the  exclusion  of,  all  other  gods. 
But  we  do  not  by  any  means  intend  to  assert  that 
Moses  was  a  monotheist,  or  that  he  supposed  Yahweh 
to  be  absolutely  the  only  god  and  the  other  gods  not 
to  exist  at  all.  Such  pure  monotheism  as  that  belongs 
to  much  later  days.  It  was  not  till  many  centuries 
after  the  time  of  Moses  that  the  prophets  attained  to 
so  lofty  a  conception.  Moses  himself  believed  in  the 
existence  of  other  gods  just  as  much  as  in  that  of 
Yahweh;  but  he  taught  that  Yahweh  was  the  only 
one  to  whom  the  Israelites  ought  to  pray.  He  was 
profoundly  impressed  with  Yahweh's  majesty  and 
power.  Yahweh  only  was  Israel's  god.  We  find 
this  principle  expressed  in  the  phrase  of  the  law — 
"  Ye  shall  have  no  other  gods  before  me."  But  we 
shall  come  back  to  this  presently. 

It  is  more  difficult  to  answer  the  question  what 
Moses  thought  about  the  worship  of  images,  and  what 
was  his  attitude  towards  the  bull-worship.  Bull- 
worship  was  still  a  thoroughly  national  institution  in 
Israel  whole  centuries  after  Moses  was  dead.  It  has 
sometimes  been  compared  with  the  Egyptian  worship 
of  Apis.  But  such  a  comparison  is  a  mistake ;  for  it 
was  a  real  live  bull  that  the  Egyptians  adored,  while 
Israel's  bull-worship  was  only  the  worship  of  Yahweh 
in  the  likeness  of  a  bull.  It  is  quite  clear,  from  the 
subsequent  history  of  Israel,  that  this  was  popularly 


46  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

regarded  as  pure  Yahweh-worship.  And,  however 
bitterly  the  later  Israelites  condemned  it,  however 
zealous  the  priestly  lawgiver  after  the  captivity 
showed  himself  against  the  worship  of  images,  it  is 
easy  to  see  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  traditions 
about  Moses  to  mark  him  out  as  an  opponent  of 
image-worship.  There  is,  however,  on  the  other 
hand,  nothing  to  show  that  he  defended  it  or  approved 
of  it 

The  most  noteworthy  point  in  the  representation  of 
Yahweh  which  Moses  gives  us,  is  the  moral  character 
that  he  ascribes  to  him.  We  must,  it  is  true,  put  out 
of  our  heads  altogether  any  such  exalted  ideas  as 
those  entertained  by  the  prophets  of  later  times.  To 
their  minds  Yahweh  was  a  purely  spiritual  being,  who 
desired,  not  sacrifice,  but  purity  of  heart ;  a  god  who, 
far  from  being  identified  with  nature,  was  contrasted 
with  nature  as  her  almighty  lord  and  master.  Now, 
although  Moses  acknowledged  the  dominion  of  Yah- 
weh over  nature,  he  by  no  means  made  any  such  sharp 
distinction  between  them.  To  him  Yahweh  was  still 
the  light-god  and  fire-god,  a  terrible  and  mighty  being, 
whom  none  could  either  gaze  on  or  approach.  But  at 
the  same  time  he  regarded  him  as  the  Holy  One ; 
this  god  of  his  demanded  morality;  it  was  only  by 
being  good  that  men  could  serve  him.  Thus  Moses 
identified  the  command  to  lead  a  moral  life  with  the 
law  of  Yahweh,  and  it  is  his  signal  merit  thus  to  have 
laid  the  foundation  of  Israel's  subsequent  growth  and 


Moses.  47 

progress  in  religious  thought  and  feeling.  He  was 
the  first  of  all  the  men  of  Israel  to  feel  and  say, 
"Yahweh  is  holy,  and  desires  holiness." 

We  may  well  suppose  that  the  sons  of  Israel  were 
still  too  backward  to  accept  the  teachings  of  Moses 
at  once.  Tradition  speaks  of  opposition  to  Moses, 
again  and  again  renewed,  on  the  part  of  the  tribes, 
and  even  of  actual  insurrections.  The  union  of  the 
tribes,  which  the  deliverance  from  Egypt  had  power- 
fully cemented  for  the  moment,  did  not  prove  strong 
enough  in  the  long  run.  It  was  not  only  that  the 
people  kept  up  the  service  of  other  gods,  —  that  went 
on  for  centuries ;  but  even  in  serving  the  ancient  god 
of  their  fathers,  they  failed  to  heed  the  modified 
character  which  Moses  ascribed  to  him.  The  sequel 
of  the  history  shows  us  that  it  was  only  a  few  of  the 
more  thoughtful  followers  of  Moses  that  could  sym- 
pathize with  him,  and  that  in  them  alone  did  his  views 
bear  fruit.  His  work,  like  that  of  all  great  reformers, 
was  for  the  future;  fairly  understood  by  posterity 
alone,  he  stands  at  the  opening  of  the  history  of 
Israel,  the  deliverer  and  legislator  of  his  race,  and 
succeeding  centuries  have  set  a  seal  upon  his  work. 

We  must  now  speak  further  of  the  code  of  law 
which  Moses  promulgated,  and  of  certain  institutions 
and  usages  attributed  to  him.  Moses  represented 
the  relation  between  Yahweh  and  Israel  as  a  cov- 
enant; Yahweh  was  Israel's  god,  and  Israel  was 


48  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

Yahweh's  people ;  the  .code  constituted  the  basis  of 
this  covenant  between  the  two.  We  have  this  code 
complete  in  two  separate  passages  of  the  Pentateuch, 
Exod.  xx.  2-17,  and  Deut.  v.  6-21.  When  we  com- 
pare these  two  passages  together,  we  find  a  great 
difference  between  them,  not  only  in  a  multitude  of 
small  points,  but  especially  in  the  commandment  to 
keep  the  Sabbath-day.  It  follows  at  once  from  this, 
that  these  commandments  are  not  derived  from  Moses 
in  their  present  form.  The  commandments  as  we 
have  them  must  be  regarded  as  later  elaborations,  the 
gist  or  kernel  of  them  alone  being  from  Moses. 
Moreover,  the  tradition  that  Moses  broke  the  original 
tables  of  stone  seems  to  indicate  that  the  code  was 
not  considered  so  holy  but  that  it  was  permissible  to 
modify  it.  At  any  rate,  it  is  probable  that  this  story 
covers  some  recollection  of  a  remodeling  of  the  code. 
This  code,  which  is  generally  known  as  the  law  of 
the  Ten  Commandments,  is  called  in  the  Pentateuch 
itself  the  law  of  the  Ten  Words.  The  exordium 
itself  —  "I,  Yahweh,  am  your  god,  who  brought  you 
out  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage/'  which  is 
not  generally  counted,  inasmuch  as  it  cannot  be  said 
to  be  a  commandment,  must  be  reckoned  as  the  first 
Word.  This  is  the  foundation,  the  starting-point,  of 
the  whole  set  of  laws.  Yahweh,  on  his  part,  makes 
the  announcement  that  he  regards  himself  as  the  god 
of  Israel,  and  founds  upon  it  the  obligation  of  the 
people  to  obey  his  commandments.  Then  the  second 


Moses.  49 

Word  will  be  what  is  usually  called  the  first  command- 
ment, "Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me ; " 
while  what  we  call  the  second  commandment,  which 
contains  a  prohibition  of  idolatry,  is  of  later  date,  and 
must  be  regarded  as  an  elaboration  of  the  first.  Then 
follows  the  third  Word,  the  same  as  our  third  com- 
mandment, dealing  with  the  sacredness  of  an  oath 
taken  in  Yahweh's  name ;  and  then  we  have  the  dedi- 
cation of  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  to  Yahweh,  the 
commandment  to  honor  our  parents,  and  the  pro- 
hibitions of  murder,  adultery,  theft,  false  witness  and 
covetousness. 

According  to  the  narrative  in  Exodus,  Yahweh 
himself  proclaimed  this  set  of  laws  on  Mount  Sinai, 
while  all  the  people  were  gathered  at  the  foot  of 
the  mountain,  and  tumultuous  tokens  of  Yahweh's 
majesty  and  power,  in  earthquake  and  thunder,  filled 
them  with  awe.  All  that  is  likely  to  be  historical  in 
this  account  is  that  Moses  assembled,  not  indeed  the 
whole  of  the  people,  but  the  heads  of  the  tribes,  and 
gave  them  the  code ;  there  was  probably  no  lack  of 
sacrifices  and  festivals  on  the  occasion,  while  the 
representatives  of  the  Israelites  solemnly  pledged 
themselves  to  keep  the  commandments  thus  commu- 
nicated to  them. 

We  can  say  nothing  with  certainty  about  any  other 

laws  or  precepts  given   by  Moses.     With  regard  to 

the  great  majority  of  the  laws  which  we  find  in  the 

Pentateuch,  it  is  quite  certain  that  they  belong  to  a 

7 


50  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

later  day.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  possible  that  a  few 
more  injunctions  are  to  be  ascribed  to  him.  It  is 
likely  enough  that  he  retained  much  that  was  already 
current  before  he  began  to  teach,  or,  at  any  rate,  that 
he  adopted  it  with  modifications.  Such  was  the  case 
with  the  dedication  of  the  Sabbath  in  the  fourth 
Word.  The  seventh  day,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
was  originally  dedicated  to  the  planet  Saturn,  or 
Kewan  ;  Moses  adopted  the  institution,  but  made  the 
day  a  day  of  rest,  and  consecrated  it  to  Yahweh.  In 
the  same  way,  he  retained  the  established  customs  of 
circumcision  and  the  dedication  of  the  first-born. 
He  probably  laid  it  down  that  all  first-born  sons  must 
be  redeemed  from  Yahweh  with  an  offering.  Human 
sacrifice,  though  by  no  means  uncommon  in  Goshen, 
and  not  yet  extirpated,  even  after  the  time  of  Moses, 
was  certainly  not  prescribed  by  him.  It  was  not 
necessary  that  the  man  who  was  due  to  Yahweh 
should  be  offered  up ;  he  was  redeemable,  and,  indeed, 
was  obliged  to  be  redeemed.  It  is  true  that  human 
beings  were  sometimes  dedicated  to  Yahweh,  and 
then  burnt  with  all  who  belonged  to  them,  and  this 
custom  was  called  "cherem,"  or  ban;  but  this  was 
a  punishment  wreaked  upon  those  who  had  been 
guilty  of  grave  transgressions  of  Yahweh's  law.  It 
was  not  human  sacrifice,  properly  so  called. 

According  to  a  later  tradition,  the  code  of  laws 
was  preserved  in  the  ark,  that  is,  the  chest,  of  the 
covenant,  which  was  placed  in  the  middle  of  a  porta- 


Moses.  5 1 

ble  tent,  called  the  tabernacle.  The  description  given 
of  both  of  these  in  the  Pentateuch  is  utterly  incorrect, 
inasmuch  as  it  is  at  variance  with  the  much  older 
accounts  in  Samuel  and  Kings.  It  is  in  the  highest 
degree  probable  that  this  ark  was  regarded  as  the 
dwelling-place  of  Yahweh  himself;  or,  perhaps,  a 
stone  was  kept  in  it,  and  this  stone  was  looked  upon 
as  Yahweh's  duelling,  and  the  ark  only  as  the  place 
where  it  was  kept.  In  any  case,  the  Israelites  at- 
tached the  greatest  value  to  this  chest,  as  we  may 
gather  from  their  habit  of  carrying  it  with  them  into 
battle.  They  attributed  to  it  mighty  powers  and 
most  formidable  effect.  Now,  we  may,  with  consid- 
erable confidence,  take  Moses  to  have  been  the 
originator  of  this  ark,  and  it  is  very  probable,  too, 
that  he  cherished  that  material  conception  which,  in 
times  long  subsequent,  we  still  meet  with  among  the 
people.  This  ark,  we  may  suppose,  stood  in  a  simple 
tent,  while  a  few  priests  were  attached  to  it,  with 
Aaron,  the  brother  of  Moses,  at  their  head. 

We  know  nothing  more  of  any  laws  or  institutions 
given  by  Moses.  But  slight  as  our  information  is,  it 
is  sufficient  to  justify  us  in  the  very  high  estimate  of. 
him  to  which  we  have  already  given  expression.  We 
recognize  and  esteem  him  as  the  founder  of  Israel's 
national  existence,  the  great  legislator  and  religious 
leader,  who  gave  the  first  powerful  and  decisive  im- 
pulse to  the  development  of  Israel. 


52  The  Religion  of  Israel, 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE   PERIOD   OF   THE   JUDGES. 

TF  we  wish  to  form  a  correct  conception  of  the 
-*-  religious  condition  of  Israel  during  the  period  of 
the  Judges,  that  is  between  Moses  and  Saul,  it  will 
not  do  to  be  guided  by  the  opinions  of  the  writer 
of  the  Book  of  Judges.  That  writer  did  not  live  till 
the  sixth  century  before  Christ,  and  he  measured  the 
condition  of  his  countrymen,  in  ages  long  gone  by, 
according  to  the  standard  of  his  own  days.  He  was 
a  monotheist ;  and  he  held  that  the  good  or  ill  fortune 
of  his  people  depended  on  nothing  but  attachment  to 
Yahweh,  or  neglect  of  his  service.  That  is  the  point 
of  view  from  which  he  writes  history.  According  to 
his  representation,  Israel  had  already  been  united 
into  one  nation  and  brought  to  pure  monotheism 
by  Moses ;  and  had  thus,  with  the  powerful  help  of 
Yahweh,  possessed  itself  of  the  land  of  Canaan  with- 
out much  difficulty.  But  the  nation  had  fallen  away 
from  Yahweh  afterwards  and  served  other  gods ;  and 
so  Yahweh  had  given  it  over  to  foreign  oppressors,  or 
to  the  Canaanites  themselves.  Israel  had  thus  been 
brought  to  its  senses,  and  had  turned  again  ;  Yahweh 
had  raised  up  some  valiant  man,  as  a  judge,  to  defeat 


The  Period  of  the  Judges.  53 

the  enemy  and  bring  about  a  fresh  period  of  rest  and 
peace.  After  the  lapse  of  some  time  the  circumstances 
had  repeated  themselves,  and  there  had  been  the 
same  idolatry  on  the  part  of  Israel,  and  the  same 
deliverance  by  Yahweh. 

This  representation  is  not  only  altogether  unhis- 
torical,  but  also  psychologically  impossible  and  un- 
reasonable. That  a  nation,  after  once  attaining  to 
pure  monotheism,  should  again  and  again  fall  back 
into  polytheism,  is  inconceivable.  Would  any  one 
deliberately  serve  other  gods  when  he  knew  very  well 
that  they  did  not  even  exist,  and  that  there  was  but 
one  sole  God  ?  A  pure  monotheism  is  the  overthrow 
of  polytheism.  Moreover,  we  know  from  other  writ- 
ings, much  older  than  the  Book  of  Judges,  that  the 
people  did  not  attain  to  monotheism  till  many  centu- 
ries later;  so  that  there  are  ample  reasons  for  not 
abandoning  ourselves  unconditionally  to  the  guidance 
of  the  author  of  Judges.  We  may,  indeed,  learn 
from  him  what  people  thought  in  his  day  about  the 
history  of  former  times,  but  not  what  that  history 
really  was.  Happily,  however,  he  incorporated  in  his 
book  certain  passages  of  older,  and  some  even  of 
very  ancient  date,  which  give  us  more  light ;  and  from 
the  sequel  of  Israel's  history  we  can  make  out  for 
certain  what  the  state  of  affairs  was  in  those  olden 
times,  at  any  rate  in  the  main. 

We  have  seen  that,  though  Moses  was  by  no  means 


54  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

a  monotheist  in  the  sense  of  denying  the  existence  of 
other  gods,  he,  nevertheless,  preached  Yahweh  as  the 
god  of  Israel,  whom  the  nation  was  to  worship  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  other  gods.  But  we  cannot  be  sur- 
prised to  find  that  the  people  was  not  yet  sufficiently 
advanced  to  understand  and  appreciate  Moses'  point 
of  view.  The  best  men  in  the  nation,  the  heads  of 
the  tribes,  may  have  been  led  by  the  powerful  influ- 
ence of  Moses,  and  the  course  of  their  own  fortunes, 
to  accept  the  religion  of  Yahweh,  but  the  people 
itself  stuck  by  the  old  .gods  and  the  old  customs. 
The  tribes,  so  slightly  bound  together  in  Goshen, 
were  indeed  brought  into  closer  union  by  the  worship 
of  a  common  god  and  by  their  common  exodus ;  but 
they  soon  resumed  the  old  wandering  life,  which  did 
not  tend  to  strengthen  their  mutual  ties.  Things  are 
not  likely  to  have  improved  after  the  death  of  Moses. 
We  may  see  how  slight  were  the  effects  of  their 
consciousness  of  a  common  origin  and  a  common 
religion  from  the  fact  that,  even  in  the  conquest  of 
Canaan,  the  tribes  did  not  take  the  field  together 
against  the  enemy,  but  fought  either  one  tribe  at  a 
time,  or  at  any  rate  only  a  few  together.  Of  a  nation, 
properly  so  called,  there  was  as  yet  no  trace ;  there 
were  only  tribes,  which  pressed  forward  as  oppor- 
tunity offered  and  drove  the  feebler  enemy  before 
them.  Nor  was  the  conquest  of  Canaan  achieved  in  a 
single  year,  or  in  a  short  space  of  time.  The  country 
was  slowly  occupied  bit  by  bit ;  the  former  inhabitants 


The  Period  of  the  Judges.  55 

were  never  altogether  expelled,  but  almost  everywhere 
succeeded  in  maintaining  themselves.  In  some  cases, 
indeed,  they  fell  under  the  rule  of  the  invaders,  but 
in  others  they  remained  independent,  or  even  got  the 
upper  hand.  Thus,  we  cannot  credit  Joshua,  the 
successor  of  Moses,  with  having  taken  the  whole  of 
Canaan  and  divided  it  among  the  tribes.  He  was 
only  the  most  distinguished  of  the  Israelitish  chiefs; 
a  man  who,  acting  quite  in  the  spirit  of  Moses, 
united  a  few  tribes,  and  with  them  conquered  part  of 
Canaan. 

From  these  general  considerations  we  at  once  per- 
ceive what  we  must  think  of  the  narratives  of  the 
invasion  and  the  establishment  in  Canaan.  The 
author  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  tells  us  that  Joshua, 
while  still  on  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan,  united  all 
the  tribes,  miraculously  crossed  right  through  that 
river  with  them,  no  less  miraculously  captured  the 
city  of  Jericho,  and  after  a  few  successful  battles 
found  himself  master  of  the  whole  land.  Thereupon 
he  proceeded,  so  we  are  told,  to  divide  Canaan  among 
the  tribes,  and  each  tribe  thenceforth  enjoyed  its 
inheritance  undisturbed.  We  see  how  unhistorical 
all  this  is,  when  we  remember  that  the  Canaanites 
preserved  their  independence  more  than  two  centuries 
longer;  it  was  only  under  Solomon  that  the  last  of 
them  were  thoroughly  absorbed  in  Israel.  Thus 
Joshua's  activity  must  have  been  confined  within  a 
much  narrower  circle.  A  complete  conquest  of 


56  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

Canaan  —  to  say  nothing  of  an  extermination  of  the 
Canaanites  —  never  entered  his  head.  He  sought 
and  found  there  a  dwelling  for  himself  and  his  fol- 
lowers, but  most  of  their  enemies  remained  quite 
independent  of  them. 

The  Phoenicians  in  the  north  offered  no  opposition 
to  the  invasion  of  the  Israelites ;  but  neither  did  they 
suffer  anything  at  their  hands.  As  for  the  Philistines, 
not  only  did  they  keep  their  freedom,  but  they  proved 
strong  enough  by  and  by  to  subject  more  than  one 
tribe  to  their  own  rule.  Jabin,  the  King  of  the  Hazor- 
ites,  oppressed  Israel  for  many  years.  The  Jebusites, 
the  Gibeonites,  and  others  remained  quite  independent 
throughout  the  whole  period  of  the  Jtfdges.  Now  all 
this  is  proof  enough  that  the  whole  land  was  not  con- 
quered by  the  Israelites. 

When  we  say  that  the  Israelites  are  not  to  be  con- 
sidered as  one  nation,  or  as  an  united  whole,  but 
only  as  a  number  of  tribes,  not  merely  independent 
of  each  other,  but  often  hostile  to  one  another,  this 
does  not  hold  good  of  Joshua's  day  only,  but  of  much 
later  times.  From  Deborah's  song  (Judges  v.)  which 
was  composed  in  the  period  of  the  Judges,  we  see 
clearly  how  weak  were  the  bonds  that  united  the 
tribes.  She  was  a  most  influential  woman,  thoroughly 
imbued  with  the  spirit  of  Moses,  a  true  servant  of 
Yahweh,  an  enthusiastic  advocate  of  Israelitish 
nationality.  She  judged  Israel,  and  is  described  as 
"a  mother  in  Israel."  In  her  days  Naphthali  and 


The  Period  of  the  Judges.  57 

Zebulon  were  oppressed  by  Jabin,  King  of  Hazor, 
and  she  encouraged  the  Israelites  to  resist  him.  Now, 
in  the  song  referred  to,  she  complains  that  the  brethren 
did  not  help  one  another  in  the  struggle  with  the 
common  enemy  (Judges  v.  14-18,  23);  and  this  shows 
that  there  was  no  national  unity,  and  that  the  tribes 
were  very  loosely  associated  together.  It  was  only  by 
slow  degrees  that  the  need  of  a  closer  bond  made 
itself  felt,  and  that  the  best  men  in  Israel  showed 
themselves  anxious  for  union.  Thus,  the  period  of 
the  Judges  may  be  called  the  period  of  the  gradual 
establishment  of  an  united  nationality. 

The  tribes  were  not  governed  by  the  Judges,  as  is 
often  supposed.  The  elders  were  the  chiefs  of  the 
tribes,  and  the  administration  of  justice  was  in  their 
hands.  The  Judges  were  only  the  leaders  who  com- 
manded one  or  more  tribes,  when  they  had  to  resist 
some  enemy. 

But  it  is  time  to  notice  the  influence  which  the 
invasion  of  Canaan  exercised  upon  the  Israelites.  It 
compelled  most  of  them,  at  any  rate,  to  choose  set- 
tled dwelling-places.  Some  tribes,  or  sections  of  tribes, 
might  prefer  to  keep  up  the  old  wandering  life,  but 
the  majority  were  obliged  to  change  their  habits. 
The  Canaanites  were  in  a  much  more  advanced 
state  of  civilization  than  they  were,  and  had  long 
lived  in  cities  and  villages.  If  the  Israelites  were  to 
maintain  themselves  against  them,  they  had  nothing 
for  it  but  to  build  villages  and  cities,  too,  and  say 
8 


58  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

good-by  to  their  wandering  life.  But  when  they  took 
up  their  abode  among  the  old  inhabitants,  their 
relations  with  them  grew  slowly  more  amicable  here 
and  there,  and  they  even  began  to  intermarry  with 
them. 

But  another  important  step  resulted  from  the  set- 
tlement in  Canaan,  and  the  change  in  the  habits  of 
the  Israelites :  they  began  to  apply  themselves  to 
agriculture.  To  say  nothing  of  the  influence  which 
this  had  upon  their  civilization,  it  naturally  led  them 
to  turn  their  thoughts  more  towards  those  gods  of 
the  country  who  made  the  field  to  yield  its  fruit. 
The  worship  of  these  gods  by  the  Canaanites  could 
not  but  exercise  a  strong  influence  on  the  Israelites, 
and  some  of  them  joined  in  it  readily  enough.  We 
must  not  forget  that  the  Canaanites  were  Semites 
just  as  much  as  they  were,  and  thus  came  of  a  com- 
mon stock ;  and  as  they  spoke  the  same  language, 
they  had  no  difficulty  in  holding  intercourse  together. 
Now,  the  worship  of  Baal  and  Ashera,  the  god  and 
goddess  who  presided  over  the  forces  of  life  and 
fruitfulness,  prevailed  among  the  Canaanites ;  and 
they  worshiped  Baal  in  joyous  and  noisy  festivals  of 
a  very  sensual  kind.  No  wonder,  then,  that  when  the 
Israelites  came  into  closer  contact  with  the  Canaan- 
ites, they  fell  into  the  worship  of  the  gods  of  the 
country  almost  as  a  matter  of  course.  This  was  all 
the  more  natural,  because,  as  we  know,  they  were  by 
no  means  monotheists.  According  to  their  ideas,  the 


The  Period  of  the  Jiidges.  59 

gods  of  other  nations  were  just  as  much  gods  as  their 
own  tribal  god,  Yahweh.  It  is  even  possible  that  at 
this  time  they  sometimes  called  their  own  god,  Baal. 
So  little  difference  was  there  in  those  days,  according 
to  their  way  of  thinking,  between  the  Canaanites' 
god  and  theirs.  Thus,  there  was  no  difficulty  in 
serving  both  together.  They  never  thought  of  stick- 
ling for  the  exclusive  worship  of  their  own  god ;  and 
the  result  was,  that,  during  that  period,  the  religion 
of  the  Israelites  was  a  mixture  of  very  various 
elements. 

All  the  Israelites,  however,  did  not  ally  themselves 
so  closely  with  the  Canaanites,  or  pass  over  so  readily 
to  the  service  of  their  gods.  There  were  many  who 
remained  faithful  to  the  old  habits,  and  saw  nothing 
but  a  lamentable  falling  off  in  the  way  in  which  their 
brethren  entered  into  fellowship  with  the  inhabitants 
of  the  land.  This  was  the  case  most  of  all  with  those 
who  kept  to  the  nomadic  life.  With  them,  in  all 
probability,  the  worship  of  Yahweh  was  preserved 
from  foreign  adulteration.  They  drew  a  contrast 
between  the  character  of  their  own  god,  so  strong  and 
stern,  but,  at  the  same  time,  so  pure,  and  the  soft  and 
sensual  nature  of  Baal.  They  were  zealous  for  what 
was  ancient,  national,  Mosaic,  as  opposed  to  every- 
thing that  could  injure  what  was  peculiar  to  Israel. 
In  this  struggle  they  faere  in  a  minority  at  first,  but 
by  degrees  they  increased  in  influence  and  power  \ 
and  at  the  close  of  the  period  of  the  Judges,  there 


60  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

was  an  end  to  all  danger  that  the  Israelitish  element 
would  be  swallowed  up  by  the  Canaanitish. 

We  will  not  go  into  details  in  considering  the 
narratives  which  we  find  about  the  Judges  in  the 
book  which  is  named  after  them.  We  will  only 
notice  a  few  minor  indications,  which  reveal  the 
religious  features  of  the  time  as  we  have  just  sketched 
them.  We  have  already  mentioned  Deborah  in 
another  connection;  from  the  song  which  bears  her 
name,  we  see  that  she  knew  how  to  inspire  Barak, 
the  Judge,  and  to  fill  the  people  with  zeal  for  Yahweh. 
It  is  her  earnest  desire  that  Yahweh  should  be  served 
as  the  god  of  Israel.  In  her,  the  love  of  the  people 
and  the  love  of  the  people's  god  coalesce.  She 
labored  entirely  in  the  spirit  of  Moses,  and  exercised 
a  most  happy  influence  on  her  people. 

In  Gideon's  own  individual  name,  "Jerubbaal"  — 
for  "Gideon"  is  only  a  surname,  —  there  is  evidence 
that  Baal  was  served  in  Israel  in  those  days.  There 
are  a  great  many  names  compounded  from  Baal ;  but 
by  and  by,  when  people  began  to  find  this  offensive, 
the  "baal"  was  often  changed  into  "bosheth,"  which 
means  "shame."* 

It  is  related  of  Jepthah,  that  he  made  a  vow  to 
sacrifice  the  first  human  being  he  met  when  he  got 
home,  to  Yahweh,  if  only  the  latter  would  give  him 
the  victory  over  his  enemies.  And  when  he  had 

*  For  example,  in  "  Ishbosheth  "  (2  Samuel  ii.  8,  &c.).  [Tr.] 


The  Period  of  the  Judges.  6 1 

defeated  them  and  was  returning  home,  his  daughter 
came  out  to  meet  him ;  and  he  fulfilled  his  vow  by 
slaying  her.  From  this  it  appears  that  in  those  days 
human  victims  were  offered  to  Yahweh,  which  is  quite 
in  keeping  with  the  character  assigned  to  him ;  but  it 
is  equally  clear  that  human  sacrifice  was  already  an 
exceptional  thing,  and  did  not  often  take  place,  so 
that  Jepthah  could  regard  it  as  likely  to  prove  a 
powerful  agency  in  securing  Yahweh's  favor. 

The  story  of  Samson  and  his  deeds  originated  in  a 
solar  myth,*  which  was  afterwards  transformed  by 
the  narrator  into  a  saga  about  a  mighty  hero  and 
deliverer  of  Israel.  The  very  name,  "Samson,"  is 
derived  from  the  Hebrew  word  that  means  "sun." 
The  hero's  flowing  locks  were  originally  the  rays  of 
the  sun ;  and  other  traces  of  the  old  myth  have  been 
preserved,  pointing  to  a  time  when  the  worship  of  the 
sun,  borrowed  from  the  Canaanites,  found  a  home 
among  the  Israelites.  And  this  is  one  more  proof 
of  what  we  said  above. 

We  know  very  little  about  the  forms  of  worship 
which  prevailed  in  the  time  of  the  Judges.  Yahweh 
was  worshiped  at  a  great  many  places,  in  sanctua- 
ries of  larger  or  smaller  dimensions;  and  we  find 
mention  made  of  images  of  Yahweh  there,  which 
were  probably  images  of  a  bull.-  At  Shiloh  there  was 

*  See  page  25,  note.  A  solar  myth  is  a  myth  in  which  the  sun 
is  the  hero,  and  the  alternations  of  cloud  and  sunshine,  day  and 
night,  summer  and  winter,  or  similar  phenomena,  afford  the 
basis  for  the  adventures  described.  [Tr.] 


62  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

a  temple  of  Yahweh,  in  which  the  ark  was  kept. 
Towards  the  end  of  this  period  especially  this  ark 
seems  to  have  been  held  in  the  deepest  repect,  if, 
that  is,  we  may  judge  from  the  fact  that  in  a  certain 
war  against  the  Philistines  it  was  borne  by  two 
priests  into  the  midst  of  the  camp  in  order  to  make 
sure  of  victory.  But  the  plan  was  not  successful, 
and  the  priests  forfeited  their  lives  in  their  efforts  to 
defend  the  ark  against  the  enemy.  All  this  goes  to 
show  that  the  worship  of  Yahweh  was  rising  into 
higher  and  higher  estimation.  At  this  same  Shiloh 
sacrifices  were  offered,  and  there  were  great  festivals 
held  yearly,  with  choral  dances  in  honor  of  Yahweh. 
Any  one  might  be  a  priest  and  offer  sacrifice,  but  the 
Levites  were  preferred  for  the  purpose. 

The  political  condition  of  Israel  towards  the  end 
of  this  period  was  such  that  the  tribes  began  strongly 
to  feel  the  need  of  closer  union.  There  were  many 
districts  in  which  they  could  with  difficulty  maintain 
their  footing  against  their  enemies.  Especially  was 
this  the  case  in  the  south,  where  the  Philistines 
penetrated  a  long  way  into  the  Israelitish  territory, 
and  succeeded  in  reducing  more  tribes  than  one  to 
subjection.  And  now  there  were  not  a  few  who 
began  to  see  that  the  national  existence  of  Israel 
was  in  peril,  and  that  .the  only  safety  lay  in  harmo- 
nious action  on  the  part  of  all  the  tribes.  And  relig- 
ious considerations  pointed  in  the  same  direction. 
To  these  we  must  now  turn  our  attention ;  and  it  is 


Samuel  and  Saul.  63 

thus  that  we  shall  make  acquaintance  with  the  famous 
Samuel,  and  come  to  understand  the  part  he  played 
in  the  religious  history  of  Israel. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

SAMUEL    AND    SAUL. 

r  I  ^HE  character  and  career  of  Samuel  are  sketched 
"*-  by  a  very  friendly  hand  in  the  books  which  bear 
his  name.  The  writer  is  certainly  not  always  quite 
fair,  and  has  obviously  exalted  his  hero,  especially  at 
the  expense  of  Saul.  He  gets  all  the  credit,  for 
instance,  of  delivering  Israel  out  of  the  enemy's  hands, 
though  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  was  Saul  and  David 
who  accomplished  this.  But,  for  all  that,  Samuel's 
merit  is  really  very  great.  His  labors  were  carried  on 
quite  in  the  spirit  of  Moses :  he  stirred  up  the 
religious  feeling  of  the  nation,  and  the  enthusiasm 
which  he  succeeded  in  imparting  to  others,  he  guided 
and  preserved  from  running  into  excesses..  Samuel 
was  the  precursor  of  Saul  and  David,  and  it  was  he 
who  made  their  work  possible. 

He  was  the  son  of  Elkanah  and  Hannah,  and 
belonged  to  the  tribe  of  Ephraim.  He  was  educated 
under  Eli,  the  priest,  at  the  sanctuary  of  Shiloh ;  and, 
after  Eli's  death,  he  rose  to  high  distinction  and 


64  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

became  very  influential.  He  made  his  home  at 
Ramah,  where  he  labored  as  Judge ;  and,  unlike  any 
of  the  previous  Judges,  he  held  courts  of  justice,  and 
that  not  only  in  his  own  dwelling-place,  but  also  in 
other  places  in  the  neighborhood. 

It  was  in  his  days  that  that  strong  desire  for  polit- 
ical unity  showed  itself  of  which  we  have  already 
spoken  ;  and  at  the  same  time  a  vigorous  religious 
life  was  stirred  up.  There  had  always  been  worshipers 
of  Yahweh,  and  he  had  always  been  looked  upon  as 
the  national  god ;  but  the  gods  of  the  Canaanites 
were  served  along  with  him,  without  any  one  seeing 
any  harm  in  it,  or  supposing  there  could  be  any  incon- 
sistency in  serving  Yahweh  at  the  same  time.  Now, 
however,  the  opinion  was  growing  more  and  more 
common  that  the  only  'salvation  for  Israel  lay  in 
serving  Yahweh  in  the  spirit  of  Moses,  that  is  to  say, 
to  the  exclusion  of  all  other  gods.  Very  probably 
this  view  was  powerfully  promoted  by  a  presentiment 
that,  if  Israel  allied  itself  too  closely  with  the  Canaan- 
ites, all  that  was  peculiar  to  it,  including  the  worship 
of  Yahweh,  would  inevitably  perish.  This  feeling 
declared  itself  in  those  Israelites  especially  who  were 
most  attached  to  the  ancestral  manners  and  the 
ancient  habits  of  their  tribes.  As  an  indication  of 
this,  we  may  mention  the  powerful  influence  which 
Eli,  the  chief  priest  at  Shiloh,  where  the  ark  of 
Yahweh  was  kept,  exercised  towards  the  close  of  this 
period,  while  we  find  no  traces  of  any  such  respect 


Samuel  and  Saul.  65 

being  paid  to  this  sanctuary  in  earlier  times.  And 
with  Eli's  death  the  authority  of  the  Shiloh  priesthood 
was  broken  up,  —  a  fact  which  must,  indeed,  be 
attributed  in  the  first  place  to  the  feebleness  and 
insignificance  of  the  priests  belonging  to  his  family, 
but  is  due  in  part,  also,  to  the  removal  of  the  ark  to 
Kirjath-jearim,  and  afterwards  to  Jerusalem.  The 
temple  at  Jerusalem  totally  eclipsed  the  ancient 
sanctuary  of  Shiloh. 

Now,  Samuel,  who,  on  the  death  of  Eli,  rose  to  the" 
highest  pitch  of  influence  and  authority,  was  the 
representative  of  those  new  tendencies  which  were 
working  so  much  in  the  spirit  of  Moses.  With  his 
whole  soul  he  urged  the  service  of  Yahweh.  Indeed, 
he  would  tolerate  no  other  god  in  Israel.  His  whole 
career  was  actuated  by  these  feelings.  He  stirred 
Israel  up  to  resist  the  Philistines ;  and  perhaps  even 
went  to  battle  against  them  himself.  He  preached 
that  the  Canaanites  must  be  subdued,  and,  if  possible, 
altogether  extirpated,  and  that  all  the  sons  of  Israel 
must  be  faithful  to  Yahweh. 

It  was  about  this  time  that  the  institution  of  the 
Nazirites,  connected,  as  it  was,  with  the  movement  of 
Samuel,  arose.  This  was  the  name  given  to  those 
who  dedicated  themselves  to  the  service  of  Yahweh 
alone,  while,  in  honor  of  him,  they  abstained  from 
wine  and  strong  drink  and  from  cutting  their  hair. 
In  this  abstinence  from  wine  we  perceive  an  oppo- 
sition to  the  service  of  the  Canaanitish  gods.  For  the 


66  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

worship  of  the  Baals  was  accompanied  with  the  use  of 
the  product  of  the  vine,  and  at  their  festivals  this  was 
carried  to  great  excess.  And  so  by  his  solemn  vow 
to  abstain  from  wine  all  his  life,  the  Nazirite  intended 
publicly  to  declare  himself  against  the  Baals.  Samuel 
himself  took  the  vow,  as  we  are  also  told  of  Samson 
before  him ;  and  many  others  followed  his  example 
in  those  days,  in  fervent  enthusiasm  for  Yahweh. 

To  Samuel's  time,  too,  must  be  referred  the  rise  of 
prophecy.  We  are  not  at  present  in  a  position  to 
examine  this  phenomenon  fully,  and  we  shall  recur 
to  it  by  and  by.  But  we  must  not  defer  the  explana- 
tion of  its  origin.  The  word  "  nabi,"  which  the  Israel- 
ites used  for  a  prophet,  signifies  one  who  is  inspired 
and  moved  by  the  divine  spirit.  Probably  the 
example  of  the  Canaanites  led  to  the  rise  of  this  kind 
of  inspiration  among  the  Israelites.  At  any  rate,  the 
Canaanites  had  their  prophets  too,  and  the  Israelites 
were  far  from  denying  that  a  man  might  be  inspired 
by  other  gods  besides  Yahweh.  The  only  difference 
between  what  were  called  "  true  "  and  "  false  "  pro- 
phets—  between  the  early  Israelitish  prophets  and 
those  of  the  Canaanites — was,  that  the  former  were 
supposed  to  be  inspired  by  Yahweh,  and  the  latter  by 
some  other  god. 

The  prophetic  spirit  manifested  itself  chiefly  among 
young  men.  In  powerful  language  they  gave  utter- 
ance to  their  zeal  for  Yahweh  and  his  service,  and 
they  seem  to  have  stirred  up  the  prophetic  fervor 


Samuel  and  Saul.  67 

with  music  and  song.  They  banded  themselves  to- 
gether in  fixed  localities,  where  they  lived  together. 
Some  of  them,  too,  were  married.  The  societies 
which  they  thus  formed  are  known  as  the  "  schools 
of  the  prophets."  But  we  must  not  imagine  that  this 
term  implies  that  they  received  any  instruction ;  it 
was  merely  the  name  of  the  society.  Later  on,  we 
find  them  called  "  the  sons  of  the  prophets,"  and  find 
a  "father"  at  their  head. 

Samuel  seems  to  have  given  a  very  happy  bent  to 
their  activity.  Enthusiasm  of  this  kind,  as  history 
teaches  us  by  many  examples,  easily  passes  into 
fanaticism  and  excess,  and  afterwards  degenerates 
into  a  dead  formalism  and  a  mere  counterfeit  of 
enthusiasm.  The  prophecy  of  Israel  did  not,  indeed, 
escape  this  latter  danger ;  but  Samuel  preserved  it 
from  the  former.  It  is  true  that  it  was  not  Samuel 
who  gave  the  first  start  to  the  growth  of  prophecy ; 
for  it  originated  among  the  Canaanites,  or  at  all 
events  sprang  from  the  example  of  the  native  inhab- 
itants, so  that  it  did  not  begin  in  the  spirit  of  Samuel. 
But,  for  all  that,  when  once  it  had  found  its  way  into 
Israel,  he  guided  it  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of 
Moses.  And  thus  —  together  with  the  institution  of 
the  Nazirites  —  it  assisted  in  awakening  the  religious 
sentiment ;  and  we  may  safely  say  that  the  influence 
which  Samuel  exercised  on  prophecy  at  its  rise  was 
auspicious  in  the  extreme.  But  for  him,  it  could  not 
have  grown  so  fair  in  later  times  ;  and  it  was  he  who 


68  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

made  it  serve  to  arouse  the  sentiment  of  nationality. 
The  prophets  in  the  service  of  Yahweh  believed  in 
the  calling  of  Israel  to  be  Yahweh's  people,  and  did 
all  that  in  them  lay  to  propagate  and  strengthen  that 
belief.  They  collected  the  songs  of  the  people,  and 
infused  their  own  feelings  into  the  stories  of  the  great 
events  of  the  past.  And  they  began  to  look  upon 
the  popular  faith  as  a  degeneration  from  the  true, 
pure  faith,  which  they  themselves  held,  and  which 
they  took  to  be  the  ancient  and  original  belief.  Thus 
their  thought  and  their  labor  tended  in  a  definite 
direction,  and,  however  one-sided  they  might  be 
sometimes,  they  always  recognized  the  true  greatness 
of  Israel  and  promoted  it. 

Samuel  himself,  too,  is  called  a  prophet.  Indeed, 
the  name  is  even  applied  to  one  so  far  back  as  Moses, 
while  Deborah  is  described  as  a  prophetess ;  and  one 
other  individual,  though  not  indeed  an  historical  per- 
sonage, receives  the  title.  But,  from  a  note  given  in 
i  Samuel  ix.  9,  it  is  clear  that  no  one  really  bore  the 
appellation  of  prophet  before  Samuel ;  for  we  there 
read  that  he  who  was  called  a  prophet  in  Samuel's 
time,  was  previously  called  a  "seer."  Accordingly, 
when  later  writers  call  Moses  and  others  before 
Samuel  prophets,  we  must  suppose  that  they  are  guilty 
of  an  anachronism.  Samuel  himself  was  a  "seer" 
as  well  as  prophet.  That  is  to  say,  it  was  believed  by 
himself  and  others  that  he  could  know  hidden  things 
and  foretell  future  events.  This  belief  in  the  seer's 


Samuel  and  Saul.  69 

knowledge  of  hidden  things  was  general  in  antiquity, 
so  that  we  need  not  be  surprised  to  meet  with  it  in 
Israel.  Now,  while  the  work  of  these  seers  was  not 
connected  with  religion,  the  prophets  differed  from 
them  in  this  respect  entirely.  Their  purpose  was,  at 
bottom,  something  different  from  divining  hidden 
things;  their  aim  was  higher,  —  they  were  zealous  for 
Yahweh.  They  worked  on  a  distinct  religious  princi- 
ple, which  in  later  ages  gave  rise  to  the  loftiest 
religious  thought. 

So  strong  was  the  wish  of  the  Israelites  for  a  king 
towards  the  close  of  Samuel's  life,  that  at  last  it 
brought  about  its  own  fulfillment.  In  the  narratives 
which  we  possess,  Samuel  is  represented  to  have 
opposed  this  wish,  and  to  have  given  a  reluctant  con- 
sent only  when  he  was  at  last  obliged  to  do  so ;  and 
Yahweh  himself  is  made  to  disapprove  of  the  popular 
desire,  and  only  to  allow  the  Israelites  to  choose  a 
king  in  the  end,  when,  in  spite  of  all  that  Samuel 
could  say,  they  still  insisted  on  the  fulfillment  of  their 
wish.  The  tradition  itself  did  not  give  a  consistent 
report  of  these  particulars.  In  i  Samuel,  chapters 
viii.  to  xii.,  we  find  two  very  different  and  contra- 
dictory accounts  of  the  election  of  Saul,  the  first 
king.  According  to  one,  Samuel  anointed  him  on 
occasion  of  a  chance  meeting,  while,  according  to  the 
other,  he  was  appointed  king  by  lot  at  an  assembly  of 
the  people.  Thus  we  see  how  entirely  men  failed,  at 


70  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

a  later  time,  to  form  a  correct  idea  how  it  all  hap- 
pened. And,  indeed,  it  was  very  difficult  to  do  so; 
doubtless,  the  faithful  worshipers  of  Yahweh  in 
Samuel's  time  must  have  been  very  much  opposed 
to  the  election  of  a  king.  Yahweh  himself  was  king ; 
and  it  might  well  be  feared  that  the  freedom  of  former 
ages  and  the  ancient  simplicity  of  manners  would 
suffer  by  the  institution  of  monarchy.  And  Samuel, 
we  may  be  sure,  was  no  partisan  of  the  new  form  of 
government,  nor  was  it  at  his  instigation  that  Saul 
was  appointed,  though  no  doubt  his  influence  made 
itself  powerfully  felt  in  the  actual  choice.  The  real 
pressure  came  from  the  political  party.  They,  like 
the  prophets  and  like  Samuel,  were  desirous  of  estab- 
lishing the  unity  and  power  of  the  nation.  But 
Samuel  sought  this  result  from  his  religious  principles 
alone,  from  the  struggle  in  favor  of  Yahweh,  and 
against  everything  Canaanitish.  The  political  party, 
on  the  other  hand,  were  not  interested  in  such  a 
struggle,  for  they  feared  it  must  weaken  Israel,  and 
they  wished  for  a  king  solely  because  they  desired 
the  unity  of  the  nation  and  looked  upon  it  as  the  best 
safeguard  against  enemies  at  home  and  abroad. 
Thus,  up  to  a  certain  point,  the  two  tendencies  told 
the  same  way,  and  each  was  auxiliary  to  the  other ; 
the  unaided  efforts  of  Samuel  could  never  have  made 
Israel  a  great  and  powerful  nation,  while,  but  for  him, 
the  true  development  of  the  Yahweh  religion  would 
have  been  impossible.  But  when  at  last  he  found 


Samuel  and  Saul.  71 

himself  obliged  to  yield,  he  took  care  that  a  king 
was  chosen  who  sympathized  with  him  in  sentiment 
and  in  principle.  And  if  the  selection  of  Saul  was 
not  at  first  so  universally  approved  as  could  have 
been  wished,  when  once  it  was  perceived  that  he  was 
the  right  man  to  conduct  Israel  to  unity  and  power, 
all  acquiesced  in  the  choice. 

Saul  was  the  son  of  Kish,  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin, 
which  dwelt  in  the  heart  of  the  land.  Perhaps  the 
fact  that  he  belonged  to  so  small  a  tribe  was  not 
without  influence  in  his  elevation  to  the  throne,  for  it 
removed  all  fear  of  the  mutual  jealousy  of  the  larger 
tribes.  A  very  successful  campaign  which  Saul 
conducted,  with  a  view  to  the  deliverance  of  the  city 
of  Jabesh,  in  Gilead,  attracted  general  attention  to 
him,  and  at  once  conferred  upon  him  much  authority 
and  power.  He  went  on  with  the  work  of  Israel's 
liberation,  which  he  had  thus  begun,  and  fought  many 
a  successful  battle  against  the  Philistines.  This 
naturally  brought  him  into  great  favor  in  the  eyes  of 
the  national  party,  and,  on  the  whole,  short  as  his 
reign  was,  he  managed  to  win  the  attachment  of  his 
people  to  a  remarkable  degree,  as  we  may  gather 
from  the  faithful  loyalty  manifested  towards  the  son 
who  succeeded  him  on  his  death. 

At  first,  too,  Saul  was  on  the  best  of  terms  with 
Samuel.  And,  indeed,  it  was  only  to  be  expected 
that  he  should  be.  It  was  in  no  small  measure 


72  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

Samuel's  doing  that  he  had  been  chosen  king,  and 
with  all  the  strength  of  his  conviction  he  shared 
Samuel's  views.  He  was  zealous  for  Yahweh;  he 
pursued  the  Philistines  and  the  Canaanites  with  fire 
and  sword ;  he  was  bent  on  making  Israel  great  and 
powerful. 

But  it  was  not  long  before  a  change  came  about  in 
the  relations  of  these  two  men.  They  had  a  disagree- 
ment, which  led  at  last  to  an  open  breach.  We  can- 
not trace  its  cause  with  certainty ;  what  we  are  told 
about  it  does  not  deserve  to  be  believed  in  all  par- 
ticulars. According  to  one  account  (i  Samuel  xiii.), 
Saul  was  rejected  by  Yahweh  because  he  had  disobeyed 
a  command  of  Samuel  to  wait  seven  days  for  him 
before  he  offered  his  sacrifice  to  Yahweh.  Accord- 
ing to  another  account  (i  Samuel  xv.),  Saul  had  been 
commanded  to  make  war  upon  the  Amalekites  and  to 
lay  the  ban  (or  "  cherem  ")  upon  them,  that  is,  utterly 
to  extirpate  them.  Every  human  being  and  every 
animal  was  to  be  put  to  death.  Saul  discharges  his  com- 
mission and  puts  all  to  death  except  Agag,  the  king 
of  the  Amalekites,  whom  he  carries  off  prisoner,  while 
he  also  preserves  some  of  the  cattle,  and  leads  them 
away  for  the  purpose  of  offering  them  up  to  Yahweh. 
But  this  was  contrary  to  Yahweh's  orders,  and  so 
Samuel  is  commanded  to  announce  to  Saul  that 
Yahweh  has  rejected  him.  The  prophet  goes  to  Saul, 
informs  him  of  his  rejection,  and  with  his  own  hands 
hews  Agag  to  pieces  in  honor  of  Yahweh. 


Samuel  and  Saul.  73 

This  version  of  the  affair  belongs  to  much  later 
times,  when  people  did  not  know  how  to  explain  what 
had  happened,  and  looked  for  its  cause  in  a  direct 
rejection  of  Saul  by  Yahweh.  If  we  were  obliged  to 
accept  this  story,  we  should  think  better  of  SauPs 
behavior  than  of  Samuel's.  Probably,  however,  there 
is  a  germ  of  truth  in  this  representation,  and  it  is 
this,  —  that  the  ground  of  Samuel's  enmity  is  to  be 
sought  in  a  change  in  Saul's  opinions.  Though  the 
latter  had  at  first  been  as  zealous  as  Samuel  himself, 
he  soon  began  to  think  that  such  zeal  would  tend,  not 
so  much  to  strengthen  as  to  weaken  Israel.  It  seemed 
to  him  that  it  would  be  better  to  absorb  the  Canaan- 
ites  into  Israel  than  to  exterminate  them,  as  Samuel 
proposed.  Why  should  they  all  be  destroyed  when 
they  might  surely  help  so  much  in  increasing  the 
strength  of  Israel  against  its  enemies  ?  Saul,  who  had 
formerly,  with  Samuel,  given  the  preference  to  religious 
considerations,  now  began  to  be  guided  more  by 
political  ones.  Perhaps,  too,  he  was  growing  tired  of 
the  over-ruling  influence  of  Samuel  and  his  party,  and 
this  told  in  the  same  direction.  It  is  certain  that  at 
a  later  time  he  set  himself  against  the  prophets,  and 
also  put  a  great  many  priests  to  death.  No  wonder, 
then,  that  the  party  of  the  strict  Yahweh-worshipers 
began  to  oppose  him,  seeing  that  they  could  no  longer 
expect  any  good  from  him. 

And  so  these  two  found  themselves  opposed  to  one 
another  in  spite  of  their  former  friendship.  Nor  did 


74  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

they  bring  the  quarrel  to  a  conclusion.  Samuel  died, 
and  he  was  soon  followed  by  Saul,  who  was  wounded 
in  an  unsuccessful  battle  against  the  Philistines,  and, 
in  his  despair,  put  an  end  to  his  life  with  his  own 
hand.  Three  of  his  sons,  including  the  famous  Jona- 
than, died  at  the  same  time.  If  we  must  render  high 
respect  to  Samuel,  Saul,  too,  holds  an  honorable 
place  in  the  history  of  his  people.  Though  he  had 
sprung  from  the  soil,  the  splendor  of  a  court  could 
not  spoil  the  simplicity  of  his  character.  He  never 
became  an  Oriental  despot.  He  possessed  both  tact 
and  courage,  and  he  manfully  contributed  his  share 
towards  the  greatness  and  glory  of  his  people. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

DAVID    AND    SOLOMON. 

TT  is  time  to  direct  our  attention  to  David,  that  fa- 
-*-  mous  king  who  exercised  so  powerful  an  influence 
on  the  growth  and  progress  of  Israel.  He  was  the 
youngest  son  of  Jesse,  a  man  of  Bethlehem,  which 
was  a  city  of  Judah.  While  Saul  was  still  alive  he 
had  come  to  court,  and  for  a  long  time  he  had  been 
held  in  great  respect  there.  According  to  one  of  the 
two  accounts  given  of  his  introduction  to  Saul,  he 
attracted  the  king's  attention  by  his  glorious  combat 


David  and  Solomon.  75 

with  Goliath,  the  Philistine.  According  to  the  other 
account,  the  courtiers  brought  David  to  the  king  to 
play  the  harp  before  him,  at  which  he  was  very  skillful, 
thus  affording  Saul  a  desirable  diversion  in  the  low 
spirits  which  troubled  him  towards  the  end  of  his 
life. 

David  became  conspicuous  by  his  extraordinary 
valor  in  war,  and  more  and  more  attracted  the  notice 
of  the  people.  This  led  Saul  to  regard  him  with 
suspicion.  On  the  march  home  from  a  certain  battle 
the  strain  had  been  raised,  "Saul  hath  slain  his 
thousands,  but  David  his  tens  of  thousands."  This 
aroused  the  liveliest  suspicions  on  the  part  of  the 
king ;  and  David,  though  he  had  contracted  a  close 
friendship  with  Saul's  son,  Jonathan,  felt  that  he  was 
no  longer  safe  at  court,  and  fled  to  the  wilderness  of 
Judah,  where  other  fugitives  speedily  joined  him  to 
the  number  of  four  hundred.  Saul  pursued  him,  and 
although  David  found  a  secure  retreat  among  the 
holes  and  caverns  of  the  mountains,  and  once  mag- 
nanimously spared  the  life  of  Saul,  still  he  could  not 
hold  out  for  long,  and  was  obliged  to  take  refuge  in 
the  country  of  Israel's  bitterest  enemies,  the  Philis- 
tines. And  one  of  their  kings  gave  him  the  city  of 
Ziklag  to  dwell  in. 

We  may  mention,  moreover,  in  passing,  that,  being 
afraid  of  Saul,  David  brought  his  parents  to  the  king 
of  the  Moabites,  with  whom  they  lived  in  security 
(i  Samuel  xxii.  3,  4) ;  which  shows  that  he  was  on  very 


76  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

good  terms  with  that  monarch.  We  refer  to  this 
circumstance  because,  in  the  Book  of  Ruth,  which 
was  written  at  a  later  time,  it  is  said  that  David's 
family  was  related  to  the  Moabites  through  his  great- 
grandmother,  who  was  one  of  them.  It  would  seem, 
then,  that  this  tradition,  of  which  we  shall  say  more 
by  and  by,  is  founded  on  an  historical  fact. 

It  was  but  natural  that  nothing  short  of  absolute 
necessity  should  induce  David  to  leave  his  fatherland. 
Men  thought,  in  those  days,  that  in  Israel  alone  could 
Yahweh,  Israel's  god,  be  served.  His  power  and 
dominion  did  not  extend  beyond  Israel's  boundaries. 
Outside  those  limits  reigned  other  gods.  And  so  he 
who  left  his  country,  at  the  same  time  left  his  god ; 
the  Israelite  in  the  land  of  the  stranger  was  an 
Israelite  no  more. 

We  see  this  clearly  enough  in  a  conversation  be- 
tween David  and  Saul  (i  Samuel  xxvi.  19),  where  the 
former  says :  "  If  Yahweh  have  stirred  thee  up  against 
me,  let  him  smell  an  offering,"  that  is,  turn  his  anger 
away  by  bringing  him  an  offering ;  "  but  if  they  be 
men  that  set  thee  at  enmity  against  me,  cursed  be 
they,  because  they  are  for  driving  me  out  from  abiding 
in  the  inheritance  of  Yahweh,  and  they  say  to  me, 
Go,  serve  other  gods."  When  we  hear  him  express 
such  views  as  these,  we  can  hardly  be  surprised  that 
nothing  short  of  necessity  could  make  him  leave  his 
fatherland,  and  the  more  so  that  he  could  already 
count  so  many  faithful  friends  and  retainers  there. 


David  and  Solomon.  77 

It  is  not  likely  that  David  made  any  attempts  to 
obtain  the  crown  for  himself  during  the  life  of  Saul. 
Saul  was  too  securely  fixed  in  the  hearts  of  the 
majority  of  the  people,  and  David  himself  honored 
him  as  the  anointed  of  Yahweh.  But  circumstances 
marked  him  out  as  the  leader  of  all  such  as  could 
not  reconcile  themselves  with  Saul's  opinions  and 
tendencies.  We  have  seen  above  how  an  estrange- 
ment gradually  came  about  between  Saul  and  the 
prophets,  with  Samuel  at  their  head.  Saul  began 
to  see  that  these  enthusiasts,  who  were  for  the  extir- 
pation of  the  Canaanites,  were  more  likely  to  weaken 
then  to  strengthen  Israel.  A  coldness  ensued,  and 
even  distinct  opposition.  What  could  be  more  natural 
than  that  the  party  of  the  prophets  should  look  to 
David  ?  He  was  the  man  marked  out ;  he  was 
appointed,  so  to  speak,  by  the  circumstances  of  his 
life,  to  serve  the  good  cause.  It  was  represented 
in  later  times  that  Samuel  himself  had  consecrated 
David  as  king;  such  an  account  is,  indeed,  quite 
unhistorical,  but  it  is  perfectly  true  that  the  prophets 
supported  David  in  his  opposition  to  Saul.  The 
prophet  Gad,  warns  him  not  to  stay  in  his  hiding- 
place  for  fear  of  a  surprise  from  Saul ;  Abiathar,  the 
priest,  flees  to  David,  and  accompanies  him  on  all 
his  expeditions.  This  same  Abiathar  was  the  only 
one  who  had  escaped  from  a  massacre  of  the  priests 
of  Yahweh  at  Nob,  instituted  by  Saul,  in  which 
eighty-five  priests  perished;  and  this  massacre  is 


78  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

pretty  good  evidence  of  the  hostility  which  had 
arisen  between  Saul  and  the  party  of  Yahweh.  Thus 
everything  concurred  to  unite  David  with  these  men, 
and  perhaps,  by  his  very  persecutions,  Saul  himself 
played  no  slight  part  in  establishing  David  as  the 
leader  of  his  opponents. 

The  sojourn  in  Ziklag  did  not  last  long.  When 
David  received  the  news  of  Saul's  death,  he  returned 
to  his  Fatherland,  and  he  was  anointed  king  at 
Hebron,  the  chief  city  of  Judah,  by  delegates  from 
the  different  cities  belonging  to  that  tribe.  The 
greater  part  of  the  people,  however  —  in  fact  the 
whole  of  the  northern  part  of  the  country  —  remained 
true  to  Saul's  son,  Ishbosheth,  or,  as  his  real  name 
was,  Eshbaal.  This  Ishbosheth  was  an  insignificant 
man;  but  the  fact  that  the  people  did  homage  to 
him  as  king  says  a  great  deal  for  Saul,  who  had 
established  himself  so  firmly  in  the  affections  of  his 
subjects  that  they  would  not  desert  his  family. 

David's  power  greatly  increased  at  Hebron,  while 
that  of  Ishbosheth  rapidly  diminished,  especially 
when  Abner,  who  had  been  Saul's  chief  general, 
deserted  him.  Ishbosheth  met  his  end  at  the  hand 
of  assassins ;  and  the  voice  of  the  people  declared 
more  and  more  decidedly  in  favor  of  David,  so  that 
the  delegates  of  the  different  tribes  very  soon  came 
to  Hebron,  and  there  did  homage  to  him  as  king. 

David  reigned  at  Hebron  for  seven  years.  After 
the  lapse  of  that  time  he  established  his  court  at 


David  and  Solomon.  79 

Jerusalem.  This  city  had  formerly  been  called 
Jebus,  and  had  hitherto  remained  in  the  hands  of  a 
Canaanitish  tribe,  known  as  Jebusites.  Its  position 
was  an  admirable  one,  and  so  strong,  that  it  was  a 
common  saying  on  the  part  of  its  inhabitants,  that 
the  blind  and  the  lame  could  defend  it.  Yet  David 
undertook  the  siege,  and  showed  such  valor  and  such 
strategy  that  he  was  very  soon  master  of  the  city. 
And  there  its  unusually  advantageous  position  induced 
him  to  set  up  his  seat  of  government.  The  site  in- 
cluded two  hills;  and  on  one  of  these,  Zion,  which 
was  afterwards  called  the  city  of  David,  he  built  him- 
self a  palace,  and  he  brought  thither  the  ark  of  the 
covenant. 

After  his  removal  to  Jerusalem,  David  waged  many 
successful  wars.  Saul,  in  his  time,  had  organized  a 
small  force  as  a  sort  of  standing  army,  and  had  thus 
broken  with  the  old  custom  of  sending  all  the  men 
home  after  a  war.  This  was  a  very  advantageous 
measure,  for  Israel  was  now  prepared  for  defence  or 
attack  at  a  moment's  notice.  So  David  followed  Saul's 
example.  He  established  a  body-guard,  called  the 
Cherethites  and  Pelethites ;  and,  in  addition  to  these, 
he  had  a  very  valiant  band,  of  picked  men,  who 
always  remained  true  to  him.  He  gradually  extended 
his  power;  he  began  by  subduing  all  enemies  at 
home,  so  as  to  secure  to  Israel  a  complete  supremacy 
over  the  Canaanitish  elements  of  the  nation.  Indeed, 
after  Solomon,  we  hear  no  more  about  them.  David 


8o  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

afterwards  advanced  against  his  foreign  foes  and 
carried  on  his  wars  against  them  so  successfully  that 
he  extended  the  boundaries  of  his  kingdom  as  far  as 
the  Euphrates.  With  the  Phoenicians  he  concluded 
a  treaty  which  remained  in  force  all  through  his  life. 

Of  course  all  this  gained  for  David  the  cordial 
affection  of  his  people.  But  they  did  not  love  him 
quite  so  deeply  as  is  represented  by  later  writers  who 
saw  in  him  an  ideal  king.  An  Oriental  monarchy 
involves  many  oppressive  burdens  for  the  people.  His 
subjects  were  obliged  to  provide  for  the  requirements 
of  the  royal  household,  which  were  by  no  means 
trifling;  and  if  the  inhabitants  of  Judah  found  some 
compensation  in  having  the  king  living  amongst  them, 
the  rest  of  the  Israelites  were  often  weary  of  the 
burden.  Whatever  share  they  might  have  in  the  glory 
of  their  prince's  wars,  David's  government  seems  on 
the  whole  to  have  given  them  no  little  ground  for 
complaint.  It  is  to  this  that  we  must  trace  the  success 
that  attended  an  insurrection  led  by  Absolom,  one  of 
David's  sons,  when  he  actually  succeeded  in  forcing 
his  father  to  flee  from  Jerusalem  and  in  getting  himself 
proclaimed  king.  Soon  afterwards,  however,  he  was 
slain  in  a  battle  with  David,  and  his  forces  were 
beaten.  This  was  a  happy  event  for  the  unity  of  the 
kingdom,  for  civil  war  would  soon  have  brought  it  to 
an  end. 

It  is  not  very  easy  to  estimate  the  influence  which 


David  and  Solomon.  8 1 

David  exercised  upon  the  religious  condition  of 
Israel.  If  we  rely  upon  the  accounts  of  later  writers 
and  accept  their  estimate  of  David,  we  find  him  a 
man  after  God's  own  heart,  and  after  him  was  no  king 
like  him.  And,  again,  if  we  base  our  opinion  of  him 
on  the  psalms  which  bear  his  name,  he  was  a  man  of 
extraordinary  piety  and  of  heartfelt  religion.  Many 
of  these  psalms  are  marked  by  a  pure  and  highly  cul- 
tivated religious  sentiment,  and  if  they  are  really 
the  work  of  David,  they  give  us  an  exalted  idea  of 
his  religious  thought  and  feeling.  But  this  is  at 
variance  with  all  that  history  tells  us  of  him.  He  was  a 
thorough  soldier,  rude  and  fierce,  and  of  vehement 
passions  ;  his  deeds  give  no  sign  of  profound  religious 
sentiment  or  of  extraordinary  spiritual  attainments. 
And,  indeed,  an  impartial  investigation  shows  that  it 
is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  he  composed  these  psalms. 
It  is  highly  probable  that  not  one  of  the  seventy-three 
psalms  that  bear  his  name  is  really  his.  It  is  true  he 
was  a  poet  (a  song  of  his  has  been  preserved  outside 
the  collection  of  psalms),  so  that  at  a  later  time  he 
figured  in  the  thoughts  of  the  people  as  the  father 
of  the  psalmists;  but  what  he  really  composed  were 
songs  of  war  and  love. 

The  glory,  too,  which  was  ascribed  to  him  by  later 
generations  was  very  much  exaggerated  and  not  justi- 
fied by  history.  We  shall  see  by  and  by  how  his 
memory  came  to  be  so  exalted ;  for  the  present,  we 
need  only  observe  that  he  did  not  by  any  means  stand 


82  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

before  the  most  advanced  of  his  contemporaries,  and 
that  the  story  of  his  life  shows  that  his  religious  ideas 
were  far  from  being  so  pure  as  was  supposed  in  the 
eighth  century  before  Christ  and  afterwards. 

But  if  David  can  no  longer  wear  all  the  laurels  with 
which  he  was  crowned  by  the  traditions  of  the  people 
and  the  partiality  of  their  pride,  this  does  not  detract 
from  his  real  merits.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  thus  only 
that  he  is  restored  to  his  proper  rights.  If  he  had 
really  composed  those  beautiful  psalms  and  exhibited 
such  exalted  piety  as  was  afterwards  ascribed  to  him, 
the  fierce  and  dissolute  and  violent  deeds  which  he 
perpetrated  would  be  quite  inexplicable.  In  that 
case  we  should  have  to  look  upon  him  as  an  impos- 
sible character,  combining  gentleness,  tenderness,  and 
intense  piety  with  a  disposition  rude  and  rough, 
animated  by  sensual  passion  and  the  thirst  of  blood. 
But,  as  it  is,  we  must  judge  him,  not  by  the  standard  of 
those  who  sang  his  praises  in  a  later  age,  but  by  that  of 
the  times  in  which  he  lived  and  the  stage  of  religious 
development  which  had  then  been  reached.  And  to 
those  who  contemplate  David  from  this  point  of 
view,  he  is  really  a  great  man.  We  have  already 
seen  that  he  enjoyed  the  support  of  the  prophets  and 
had  attached  himself  to  their  party  and  to  their 
religious  movement.  And  in  this  he  never  wavered. 
Perhaps  his  constancy  may  be  ascribed  in  part  to 
political  reasons ;  for  David  saw  clearly  enough  that 
he  could  look  to  the  prophetic  party  for  powerful 


David  and  Solomon.  83 

support.  The  course  of  events  had  from  the  first 
tended  to  bring  this  about.  Saul's  hostility  to  David 
had  increased  in  proportion  to  his  estrangement  from 
the  prophets.  What,  then,  could  be  more  natural 
than  for  David  to  attach  himself  to  the  prophets,  and 
for  them  in  their  turn  to  fix  on  the  opponent  of  Saul 
their  hopes  of  the  realization  of  their  views?  In 
later  days  David  thoroughly  understood  that  nothing 
could  be  happier  for  him  than  an  alliance  with  the 
prophets.  Thus  it  is  open  to  any  one  to  say  that  his 
motives  were  political ;  his  wish  was  to  make  Israel 
great  and  to  strengthen  the  foundations  of  his  domin- 
ion. But  for  this  purpose  it  was  essential  to  promote 
the  national  unity ;  and  this  was  done  partly  by  the 
wars  which  he  waged  with  such  admirable  success, 
but  in  no  small  measure  also  by  strengthening  the 
sympathies  of  the  Israelites  with  the  followers  of 
Samuel  and  leading  them  to  feel  that  they  must  be 
Yahweh's  people.  Thus  much  David  perceived,  that 
the  sendee  of  Yahweh  as  the  national  god  could  not 
but  draw  the  Israelites  closer  together  and  increase 
their  feeling  of  national  unity.  But  this  was  just  what 
the  prophets  wanted ;  and,  happily,  circumstances 
had  so  far  changed  since  Saul's  time,  that  there  was 
nothing  to  lead  to  any  collision  between  them  and  the 
king.  Samuel  had  wished  that  the  Canaanites  should 
be  extirpated ;  but  Saul,  though  he  had  at  first  shared 
the  feeling,  had  afterwards  perceived  that  their  extir- 
pation would  weaken  Israel  too  much,  and  that  his 


84  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

kingdom  could  not  afford  to  lose  its  Canaanitish 
element.  And  then  Saul  and  Samuel  had  quarreled. 
But  in  David's  time  the  Canaanites  were  no  longer 
anything  like  so  important  as  they  had  been  in  Saul's. 
Partly  through  the  activity  of  the  prophets,  and  partly, 
too,  through  Saul's  assistance,  the  Israelitish  element 
had  everywhere  gained  in  strength;  it  had  got  the 
upper  hand  so  completely  that  the  prophets  had  no 
longer  any  need  to  urge  the  extirpation  of  the  Canaan- 
ites. They  were  gathered  up  into  Israel  and  absorbed 
by  that  people ;  and  thus  the  occasion  for  a  quarrel 
like  that  with  Saul  had  vanished. 

Thus,  for  David,  policy  and  religion  pointed  in  the 
same  direction ;  and  the  removal  of  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  to  Jerusalem  must  be  regarded  from  the 
same  point  of  view.  This  ark  had  formerly  been  kept 
in  the  sanctuary  at  Shiloh,  and  after  many  changes  of 
fortune  it  had  come  to  Kirjath-jearim.  By  way  of 
promoting  the  unity  of  the  Yahweh-worship,  David 
brought  it  to  Jerusalem,  his  seat  of  government,  and 
set  a  priesthood  over  it.  The  sacrifices  offered  at 
Jerusalem  and  the  festivals  celebrated  there  brought 
the  people  together,  increased  the  authority  and  influ- 
ence of  the  priests,  and  gave  the  national  service  of 
Yahweh  a  centre,  which  helped  to  cement  the  nation 
together,  and  afterwards  played  no  small  part  in 
further  developing  the  religion  of  Israel. 

Now,  though  it  is  of  course  quite  true  that  all  this 
served,  as  we  have  said,  to  promote  the  power  and 


David  and  Solomon.  85 

the  union  of  the  kingdom,  yet  this  would  not  justify 
us  in  supposing  that  David's  motives  were  solely 
political.  On  the  contrary,  everything  combines  to 
make  it  clear  that  he  was  himself  a  faithful  adherent 
of  Yahweh,  and  that  in  bringing  the  ark  of  his  god  to 
Jerusalem,  he  intended  to  carry  on  his  worship  with 
new  splendor.  Only,  we  must  be  on  our  guard 
against  fancying  on  this  account  that  he  shared  the 
pure  conceptions  of  the  prophets  of  a  subsequent  age, 
or  that  he  could  be  called  a  monotheist.  David  was 
a  child  of  his  own  times.  He  believed  in  the  exist- 
ence of  the  gods  of  other  nations  just  as  much  as  in 
that  of  Yahweh ;  but  he  held  that  Yahweh  was  the  god 
of  Israel,  and  that  it  was  for  Israel  to  serve  him.  We 
find  in  David  no  trace  of  a  spiritual  idea  of  Yahweh's 
nature.  From  the  story  of  the  transportation  of  the 
ark  it  is  plain  that  David  supposed  he  was  bringing 
Yahweh  himself  into  his  capital  with  the  ark.  To 
him  Yahweh  is  the  mighty  and  terrible  being  who 
sends  extraordinary  disasters  to  punish  sin,  and  whose 
anger  must  be  appeased  by  sacrificial  offerings.  From 
this  point  of  view  the  narrative  in  2  Samuel  xxi.  is 
very  instructive  and  well  calculated  to  acquaint  us 
with  the  opinions  which  David  held  in  common  with 
his  contemporaries.  In  a  certain  famine  the  king 
and  his  people  saw  an  indication  of  the  wrath  of 
Yahweh;  and  they  felt  that  he  must  somehow  or 
other  be  appeased.  The  oracle  declares  that  the 
cause  of  Yahweh's  displeasure  lies  in  a  trangression 


86  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

on  the  part  of  Saul,  who  had  put  some  Gibeonites  to 
death  and  escaped  unpunished  for  the  deed.  The 
penalty  could  not  be  remitted ;  but  Saul  was  no  longer 
living  to  make  atonement  for  his  sin.  So  seven  of 
Saul's  sons  and  grandsons  were  put  to  death  by 
David  instead  of  him,  at  the  request  of  the  Gibeon- 
ites, as  an  offering  to  appease  Yahweh.  We  see 
clearly  enough  from  this  narrative  how  Yahweh  was 
regarded  at  that  time ;  he  was  a  stern,  fierce  god ;  he 
was  easily  provoked,  and  sent  heavy  calamities  to 
punish  sin;  but  he  could  be  appeased  by  human 
sacrifices.  Nor  does  this  story  give  us  the  slightest 
reason  to  ascribe  to  David  better  knowledge  than  his 
contemporaries  possessed. 

David  reigned  for  forty  years  and  died  at  Jerusa- 
lem, after  appointing  his  son,  Solomon,  to  succeed 
him.  When  we  contemplate  him  in  the  light  of  the 
age  in  which  he  lived,  we  cannot  deny  him  the  glory 
of  a  great  statesman,  a  valiant  warrior,  and  an  upright 
and  zealous  servant  of  Yahweh.  But,  for  all  that, 
we  must  not  overlook  his  faults.  In  domestic  life  he 
showed  himself  feeble  and  destitute  of  the  courage 
necessary  for  the  punishment  of  the  guilty.  He  was 
no  stranger  to  the  passion  of  revenge.  His  religious 
ideas  were  by  no  means  unusually  advanced.  And 
thus,  however  high  a  place  we  may  assign  him  in 
virtue  of  the  powerful  influence  which  he  exerted  on 
the  history  and  the  progress  of  Israel,  those  after 
generations  which  looked  upon  him  as  the  ideal  of 
an  Israelitish  king  made  a  great  mistake. 


David  and  Solomon.  87 

The  reign  of  Solomon  seems  in  many  respects  to 
form  a  contrast  to  that  of  David.  The  latter  was  a 
warrior,  the  former  a  man  of  peace.  David  remained 
zealous  to  the  last  in  his  loyalty  to  Yahweh  and  his 
friendship  to  the  prophets ;  but  we  read  that  Solomon 
in  his  old  age  fell  away  from  Yahweh,  and  thus  lost 
the  support  of  the  prophets.  We  shall  see,  however, 
that  there  was  less  difference  in  policy  and  religious 
opinions  than  might  be  supposed  between  the  two 
kings,  and  that  what  difference  there  was  is  com- 
pletely explained  by  circumstances.  David  had  made 
Israel  great  and  powerful  by  his  wars,  while  Solomon 
reaped  the  benefit  and  made  the  glory  of  Israel  still 
more  conspicuous ;  but  both  were  guided  by  the  same 
policy.  Solomon  favored  the  worship  of  Yahweh, 
but  did  not  uphold  it  exclusively ;  he  built  a  temple 
for  Yahweh,  but  for  other  gods  as  well.  Now,  it  is 
true  that  we  do  not  read  that  David  worshiped  other 
gods,  but  we  know  that  he  acknowledged  their  exist- 
ence just  as  much  as  Solomon.  In  fact,  there  is  no 
such  great  difference  between  them ;  and  we  should 
be  less  struck  by  what  difference  there  is,  if  posterity 
had  not  conceived  a  mistaken  idea  of  Solomon,  just 
as  it  did  of  David.  If  we  do  not  wish,  then,  to  go 
wrong,  we  must  begin  by  letting  the  facts  speak  for 
themselves,  and  try  to  form  a  correct  notion  of  the 
condition  of  the  Israelitish  people  under  this  famous 
monarch. 

Solomon  preserved  almost  the  same  boundaries  as 


88  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

had  been  established  by  his  father.  By  way  of 
strengthening  the  kingdom  he  fortified  several  cities 
which  he  had  either  built  or  restored,  and  maintained 
a  standing  army  of  no  inconsiderable  size  for  those 
days.  A  regular  government  was  instituted.  He 
was  at  peace  with  the  princes  of  the  neighboring 
states,  and  he  contracted  marriage  with  several  for- 
eign princesses,  the  king  of  Egypt's  daughter  being 
amongst  the  number.  In  addition  to  all  this,  he 
brought  the  last  of  the  Canaanites,  who  even  in 
David's  time  had  enjoyed  a  kind  of  independence, 
into  complete  subjection.  Of  course  all  these  things 
increased  his  fame  and  glory,  and  the  name  of  Israel 
came  to  be  spoken  with  respect  by  foreigners. 

Moreover,  Solomon  began  to  direct  his  attention 
to  commerce,  which  soon  attained  to  large  propor- 
tions. Up  to  this  time  Israel  had  had  nothing  that 
could  properly  be  called  commerce.  Continual  wars 
had  made  it  impossible  in  David's  time ;  and,  before 
that,  Israel  was  as  yet  too  rude  and  uncivilized  to  apply 
itself  to  trade.  But  times  were  changed  now.  Solo- 
mon had  formed  treaties  with  the  surrounding  nations, 
and  as  he  wanted  a  great  many  things  which  his  own 
country  did  not  produce,  he  endeavored  to  procure 
them  from  his  friends  in  foreign  parts. 

It  was  thus  that  commerce  arose;  and  Solomon 
acquired  such  great  treasure  by  it,  that  his  wealth 
became  proverbial.  The  result  was,  that  the  Israelites 
came  to  have  more  intercourse  with  foreigners,  and 


David  and  Solomon.  89 

their  views  were  enlarged,  and  their  knowledge  and 
civilization  improved ;  while  foreigners,  on  the  other 
hand,  became  better  acquainted  with  the  Israelites, 
and  began  to  have  a  more  exalted  idea  of  their  power 
and  splendor.  We  have  a  token  of  this  in  the  friendly 
attitude  of  Egypt  and  Phoenicia,  both  of  which  were 
far  in  advance  of  Israel  at  the  time,  and  in  the  journey 
undertaken  by  the  Queen  of  Sheba,  in  Arabia,  in  her 
anxiety  to  make  acquaintance  with  Solomon,  whose 
praises  she  had  heard  so  loudly  spoken. 

If  we  bethink  ourselves  how  closely  the  conception 
of  Yahweh  was  connected  with  the  growth  of  the 
national  civilization,  we  shall  easily  perceive  what 
influence  this  new  state  of  things  must  have  exercised 
on  the  religious  opinions  of  Israel.  Even  in  David's 
time  a  higher  idea  of  Yahweh  had  been  reached ;  for 
his  wars  —  which  were  known  as  "the  wars  of  Yah- 
weh"—  had  made  Israel  great,  and  as  the  nation 
became  conscious  of  its  own  increased  greatness,  it 
began  to  believe  more  strongly  in  the  power  of  its 
god.  It  rose  to  a  higher  notion  of  what  that  god 
could  achieve,  now  that  it  saw  that  he  could  make  his 
people  great  and  famous.  Yahweh  had  grown  great 
with  his  people.  And  under  Solomon  things  pro- 
ceeded further  still  in  the  same  direction.  The 
Israelites  became  more  and  more  important  in  their 
own  eyes,  and  began  to  feel  their  own  dignity.  The 
splendor  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  brilliancy  of  a  mon- 
arch whose  fame  even  foreigners  acknowledged,  led 


90  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

the  nation  to  a  more  exalted  sense  of  power ;  and 
the  mental  development  and  the  civilization  which 
accrued  could  not  fail  to  react  upon  their  religious 
conceptions.  The  season  of  rude  strength  —  of  bar- 
barism—  was  gone  by  forever;  mental  and  spiritual 
progress  had  begun,  and  gave  promise  of  magnificent 
fruit  in  time  to  come.  No  wonder,  then,  that  Israel 
began  henceforth  to  form  loftier  ideas  of  Yahweh's 
power,  and,  ere  long,  of  his  nature  too. 

But  it  is  time  to  tell  how  Solomon  built  a  temple 
to  Yahweh  at  Jerusalem.  According  to  the  writer  of 
2  Samuel,  chapter  vii.,  David  himself  had  formed 
a  project  for  the  erection  of  such  a  temple,  but 
although  Nathan,  the  prophet,  approved  of  the  scheme 
at  first,  he  came  the  next  day  to  inform  the  king 
that  Yahweh  did  not  wish  for  a  temple.  Yahweh  had, 
from  the  most  ancient  times,  wandered  from  place  to 
place  in  a  tent,  and  had  never  desired  to  have  a 
temple  built  for  him.  Solomon  should  do  this  work, 
so  said  Nathan,  by  and  by,  instead  of  David. 

This  story  contradicts  itself.  For  if  Yahweh  did 
not  wish  for  a  temple,  why  should  Solomon  build 
one  ?  But  it  suggests  to  us  that  the  strictly  religious 
or  prophetic  party  was  not  very  well  pleased  with  the 
idea  of  building  this  sanctuary.  They  dreaded  the 
luxury  and  splendor  of  the  new  worship,  and  felt 
that  the  simplicity  of  the  old  times,  when  Yahweh 
still  dwelt  in  a  tent,  was  better  and  more  pleasing  to 
Yahweh  himself. 


David  and  Solomon.  91 

In  full  accord  with  this  is  the  fact  that  Solomon 
was  actuated  in  no  small  measure  by  political  motives 
in  building  the  temple.  He  saw  that  the  erection  of 
a  magnificent  temple  to  Yahweh,  and  the  establish- 
ment of  an  influential  priesthood,  could  not  fail  to 
add  lustre  to  his  government  and  his  capital.  The 
sacrifices  offered  there,  and  the  festivals  there  cele- 
brated —  and  probably  the  three  great  festivals  of  the 
Israelites  were  instituted  by  him  —  drew  together  the 
inhabitants  of  different  parts  of  the  country,  and  not 
only  strengthened  the  hold  of  the  Yahweh-worship 
upon  them  more  and  more,  but  at  the  same  time 
impressed  them  deeply  with  the  splendor  and  power 
of  the  king.  Thus  religion  once  more  proved  a  useful 
political  instrument.  Nor  must  we  see  in  this  any 
insincerity  on  the  part  of  Solomon.  He  honored 
Yahweh  as  the  god  of  Israel,  and  was  genuinely 
anxious  to  promote  his  service;  and  his  earnestness 
is  in  no  way  impaired  by  the  fact  that  every  stone 
which  he  added  to  the  temple,  with  this  end  in  view, 
told  likewise  towards  the  consolidation  of  his  own 
kingdom. 

The  temple  was  a  marvelously  imposing  and  magni- 
ficent building  for  those  early  times.  We  can  form 
no  accurate  idea  of  its  arrangements,  because  it  was 
so  often  altered  and  embellished ;  and  the  accounts 
which  we  now  possess  are  of  much  later  date.  It  is 
true  that  the  author  of  Exodus  xxv.  describes  the 
tabernacle  in  the  wilderness  in  such  terms  as  to  make 


92  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

it  appear  that  its  plan'  and  that  of  Solomon's  temple 
coincided ;  but  this  account  proves  nothing  with  regard 
to  the  one  or  the  other,  for  it  was  not  written  till  the 
age  subsequent  to  the  captivity,  and  it  follows  the 
plan  of  the  temple  that  was  then  standing  at  Jerusa- 
lem. Salomon's  temple,  on  the  Hill  of  Moriah,  was 
built  of  stone,  and  wainscoted  internally  with  cedar- 
wood  from  Lebanon.  In  the  centre  was  a  wooden 
erection,  the  true  sanctuary,  divided  into  "  the  Holy  " 
and  "  the  Holy  of  Holies."  In  the  latter  stood  the 
ark,  above  which  were  two  cherubs,  symbolical  animal 
forms,  the  probable  signification  of  which  we  have 
already  explained.*  Other  symbols  of  a  like  kind, 
borrowed  from  nature-worship,  were  to  be  found  all 
about  the  temple. 

From  one  thing  and  another,  we  see  that  to  Solo- 
mon's mind  Yahweh  and  the  Semitic  gods  were  not 
widely  different  in  character.  Foreign  workmen  and 
artists  from  Phoenicia  built  his  temple,  and  decorated 
it  with  symbols  borrowed  from  their  own  religion; 
proof  enough  that  neither  the  king,  nor  those  who 
carried  out  the  work  for  him,  were  conscious  of  any 
such  difference.  And,  indeed,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
not  only  was  Solomon  no  monotheist,  but  he  had  no 
very  exalted  idea  of  Yahweh.  He  built  smaller 
temples,  not  'far  from  Jerusalem,  for  other  gods  as 
well  —  the  gods  of  his  foreign  friends  —  one  for 
Astarte,  the  goddess  of  the  Zidonians;  another  for 
*  See  page  36. 


David  and  Solomon.  93 

Chemosh,  the  god  of  the  Moabites  ;  and  another  for 
Milcom,  the  god  of  the  Ammonites.  He  felt  no  dif- 
ficulty in  combining  the  worship  of  these  other  gods 
with  that  of  Yahweh.  Nor  did  he  act  thus  —  as  the 
writer  of  i  Kings  xi.  would  have  us  believe  —  in  his 
old  age,  led  away  by  his  foreign  wives,  but  he  did  it 
in  full  accordance  with  what  were,  from  the  first,  his 
religious  convictions.  In  the  temple  at  Jerusalem 
itself  Yahweh  alone  seems  to  have  been  worshiped  in 
his  time,  although  some  of  the  later  kings  set  up 
images  of  Ashera  and  of  Baal  even  there.  But  Sol- 
omon never  in  any  degree  whatever  upheld  the 
exclusive  worship  of  Yahweh. 

Attached  to  the  temple  there  was  a  priesthood. 
The  priests  were,  no  doubt,  chosen  by  preference 
from  the  tribe  of  Levi,  although  this  was  not  insisted 
on.  Every  Israelite  was  at  this  time  permitted  to 
offer  sacrifice,  and  the  king  did  so  frequently.  It 
was  only  at  a  later  epoch  that  this  became  the  exclu- 
sive right  of  the  priests,  and  that  the  offering  of 
sacrifice  was  confined  to  Jerusalem.  In  Solomon's 
time,  and  for  centuries  after  him,  offerings  were  made 
on  the  "  bamoth  "  or  high  places,  just  as  much  as  in 
the  temple.  Nor  as  yet  was  any  distinction  drawn 
between  Levites  and  priests ;  all  were  equally  quali- 
fied to  perform  the  sacrificial  offerings. 

Solomon  is  celebrated  also  as  the  first  of  the 
"sages  "of  Israel.  Those  were  known  as  "  sages  " 


94  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

who  were  possessed  of  a  skillful  understanding,  a 
ready  wit,  and  keen  powers  of  observation,  and  knew 
how  to  give  lessons  of  wisdom  in  daily  life.  And 
posterity  regarded  Solomon  as  a  "sage"  after  this 
fashion  to  an  extraordinary  degree,  and  supposed  him 
to  be  the  writer  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs  and  Ecclesi- 
astes.  We  shall  refer  to  these  books  again  by  and 
by,  and  can  here  only  assure  the  reader  that  it  is  a 
mistake  to  ascribe  them  to  Solomon.  The  wisdom  or 
"  chokma "  of  Solomon  was  of  a  very  different  kind 
to  that  of  the  following  centuries  which  has  been  pre- 
served to  us  —  for  example,  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs. 
The  latter  bears  a  religious  stamp,  and  is  connected 
with  the  worship  of  Yahweh;  but  the  wisdom  of 
Solomon  was  worldly,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with 
religion.  We  must  especially  avoid  estimating  it  too 
highly,  or  measuring  it  by  what  we  in  our  day  should 
call  wisdom.  With  Solomon  it  consisted,  in  the  first 
place,  in  the  acuteness  of  his  judgments,  of  which  we 
have  an  example  in  i  Kings  iii.  16-28;  in  the  next 
place,  in  his  aptitude  for  solving  enigmas ;  and  lastly, 
in  his  sayings  about  plants  and  animals.  It  was  said 
of  him,  subsequently,  that  he  had  composed  three 
thousand  proverbs  and  one  thousand  and  five  songs. 
This  is  certainly  very  much  exaggerated ;  but  it 
affords  good  ground  for  regarding  him  as  the  first  of 
the  "sages"  of  Israel,  to  whom  those  of  later  times 
could  look  back  as  their  great  predecessor. 

From  this,  too,  we  gather  that  Solomon's  tendencies 


The  Disruption  of  the  Kingdom.         95 

were  by  no  means  identical  with  those  of  the  prophetic 
party  He  was  no  more  exclusive  or  strenuously 
Israelitish  in  politics  than  he  was  in  religion ;  indeed, 
he  m'.ght  rather  be  said  to  be  cosmopolitan,  and 
human  rather  than  national.  If  his  spirit  had  become 
predominant,  the  peculiar  character  of  Israel  and  of 
the  Israelitish  religion  would  very  soon  have  vanished, 
and  Israel  would  have  coalesced  with  the  surround- 
ing peoples.  It  was  a  happy  thing,  on  the  one  hand, 
that  his  powerful  government  strengthened  the  belief 
in  Yah vveh's  might  and  grandeur ;  and  no  less  happy 
was  it,  on  the  other  hand,  that,  thanks  to  the  prophets, 
Israel  preserved  its  peculiar  religion  and  rose  at  last 
to  a  pure  monotheism,  such  as  no  other  people  of 
antiquity  ever  reached. 


CHAPTER   X. 

REHOBOAM  AND  THE  DISRUPTION  OF  THE  KINGDOM. 

SOLOMON  died  in  the  year  978  before  our  era. 
While  the  southern  part  of  the  country  at  once 
acknowledged  his  son,  Rehoboam,  as  his  successor 
on  the  throne,  the  northern  tribes  made  difficulties. 
Rehoboam  had  gone  to  Shechem,  the  ancient  capital 
of  the  north  of  Israel,  to  receive  homage  as  king. 
The  representatives  of  the  ten  tribes  came  to  him, 
however,  with  demands  for  the  lightening  of  the 


96  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

national  burdens,  while  they  sent  to  Egypt  for  Jero- 
boam, the  son  of  Nebat,  who  had  raised  an  insurrec- 
tion in  Solomon's  lifetime,  and  had  been  obliged  to 
take  refuge  in  flight.  He  now  placed  himself  at  the 
head  of  .the  malcontents  in  opposition  to  Rehoboam. 
After  taking  counsel,  the  latter  announced  by  way  of 
reply  to  the  representatives  of  the  northern  tribes, 
that  he  could  not  accede  to  their  requests,  but  would 
make  their  yoke  yet  more  grievous  than  it  had  been 
in  the  days  of  his  father.  This  was  the  signal  for 
revolt.  Ten  tribes  renounced  the  sovereignty  of 
Rehoboam.  It  was  in  vain  that  he  endeavored  to 
regain  the  allegiance  of  the  rebels ;  there  was  nothing 
for  it  but  to  take  flight  with  all  speed  to  Jerusalem. 

To  discover  the  cause  of  this  revolt,  it  is  clear  that 
we  must  recur  to  an  earlier  date,  and  seek  it  in  the 
reign  of  Solomon  himself,  And,  indeed,  this  king 
had  aroused  a  great  deal  of  discontent  among  those 
who  dwelt  in  the  northern  parts  of  the  country.  Nor 
must  we  forget  that  there  had  never  been  much 
sympathy  between  the  north  and  the  south.  In  the 
period  of  the  Judges  the  tribes  had  felt  hardly  any 
interest  in  each  other;  Ephraim,  the  most  powerful 
of  the  northern  tribes,  had  exercised  a  kind  of 
supremacy  in  the  north,  similar  to  that  of  Judah  in 
the  south.  United  for  a  short  time  under  Saul,  and 
after  his  death  once  more  dissevered,  under  David 
and  Solomon  they  had  at  last  become  one  kingdom. 
But  the  old  jealousy  was  not  extinct.  It  is  true 


The  Disruption  of  the  Kingdom.  97 

that  the  military  fame  and  power  of  David  had  pre- 
served his  authority  intact,  and  in  like  manner  Solo- 
mon's splendor  had  at  first  made  all  attempts  at 
resistance  impossible,  and  afterwards  speedily  sup- 
pressed them.  But  still  the  fire  smouldered.  The 
taxes  which  had  to  be  paid  to  provide  for  the 
formidable  requirements  of  the  king's  court,  and  the 
compulsory  labor  which  had  to  be  supplied  for  the 
building  of  the  strong  places,  for  the  preparation  of 
the  pleasure-grounds  and  palaces,  and  above  all  for 
the  temple,  made  the  yoke  a  heavy  one.  And  the 
Israelite  was  too  fond  of  liberty,  and  remembered 
too  well  his  olden  independence,  to  submit  to  such 
a  yoke  permanently.  Moreover,  all  the  advantages 
of  the  new  state  of  things  fell  to  Judah ;  there  stood 
the  temple,  and  there  was  the  seat  of  government; 
and  Judah  had  its  share  in  the  treasures  of  the 
king  and  in  the  luxury  of  the  royal  court.  Almost 
all  the  offices  and  appointments,  too,  were  enjoyed  by 
Solomon's  fellow-tribesmen.  And  all  these  circum- 
stances strongly  inflamed  the  jealousy  of  Ephraim. 
No  wonder,  then,  that  the  fire  which  had  so  long  been 
smouldering  at  last  burst  into  full  blaze. 

And  there  were  other  causes  which  operated  in  the 
same  direction.  We  are  told  in  the  eleventh  chapter 
of  the  first  Book  of  Kings  how  Ahijah,  the  prophet, 
a  Shilonite,  announced  to  Jeroboam  that  he  should 
be  king  over  the  ten  tribes  of  Israel.  The  address 
put  into  the  mouth  of  the  prophet  is,  no  doubt,  unhis- 
13 


98  .      The  Religion  of  Israel. 

torical,  since  it  is  full  of  the  ideas  of  later  times,  but 
it  is  an  indication  that  the  prophets  were  not  passive 
in  this  matter.  They  supported  the  revolt,  and  helped 
Jeroboam  against  Rehoboam ;  they  were  induced  by 
their  religious  principles  to  come  forward  on  this 
occasion  as  a  political  party. 

It  is  easy  to  understand  what  feelings  actuated  the 
prophets  and  their  friends.  We  have  already  seen 
that  they  were  not  much  pleased  with  the  building  of 
the  temple,  because  it  conflicted  with  their  attachment 
to  the  simplicity  of  the  ancient  service.  Indeed,  the 
whole  tendency  of  Solomon's  government  went  against 
the  grain  with  them,  for  it  seemed  as  if  he  wanted  to 
get  rid  of  everything  that  was  peculiar  to  Israel,  and 
to  put  the  worship  of  Yahweh  on  the  same  level  with 
that  of  the  rest  of  the  gods ;  while  they,  cherishing, 
as  they  did,  the  spirit  of  Moses  and  of  Samuel,  were 
anxious  to  preserve  all  lines  of  demarcation  between 
Israel  and  the  surrounding  peoples.  The  Canaanites 
they  held  accursed;  they  hated  commerce  for  the 
changes  it  made  in  the  simple  manners  of  old ;  and 
the  worship  of  strange  gods  was  in  their  eyes  abomi- 
nation. On  these  grounds  they  supported  Jeroboam ; 
for  they  hoped  from  him  the  restoration  of  the  ancient 
ways  and  of  the  sole  worship  of  Yahweh. 

The  two  kingdoms  were  of  different  size.  Jeroboam's 
authority  extended  not  only  over  the  ten  tribes,  but  over 
the  conquered  districts  of  the  north  as  well ;  though 


The  Disruption  of  the  Kingdom.  99 

these  ere  long  recovered  their  independence.  Reho- 
boam  reigned  over  Judah,  to  which  a  large  part  of 
the  tribe  of  Benjamin  was  added.  This  tribe  was, 
indeed,  connected  by  descent,  and  by  sympathy  as 
well,  with  the  north :  Benjamin  was  the  full  brother 
of  Joseph,  that  is,  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh.  But 
the  city  of  Jerusalem  stood  on  the  territory  of  Ben- 
jamin, so  that  that  district  was,  so  to  speak,  welded 
to  Judah,  and  could  not  attach  itself  to  Ephraim. 
The  Simeonites,  too,  who  no  longer  constituted  a 
distinct  tribe,  belonged  to  Judah  \  and  we  must  add 
to  these  the  Edomites,  who  had  been  conquered  by 
David. 

If  religion  had  so  much  to  do  with  the  disruption 
itself,  we  cannot  be  surprised  that  it  exercised  a 
distinct  influence  on  the  subsequent  march  of  events. 
We  perceive  this  at  once  in  the  fact  that  Jeroboam 
introduced  new  forms  of  worship.  He  founded  or 
restored  two  sanctuaries,  one  at  Dan,  in  the  north, 
and  the  other  at  Bethel,  in  the  south  of  his  kingdom. 
In  these  temples  he  placed  the  images  of  a  bull, 
overlaid  with  gold,  as  symbols  of  Yahweh.  Besides 
this,  he  issued  instructions  that  his  subjects  should 
henceforth  keep  the  harvest-festival  in  the  eighth 
month  at  Dan  and  Bethel,  although  at  Jerusalem  it 
was  celebrated  in  the  seventh  month.  By  these 
measures  he  widened  still  further  the  breach  between 
the  two  kingdoms. 

This  bull-worship  was  the  ancient  form  of  the  wor- 


IOO  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

ship  of  Yahweh.  Jeroboam  set  himself  against  the 
tendencies  of  Solomon,  who  had  acted  in  defiance  of 
the  traditions  handed  down  from  ancestral  times. 
Indeed,  Jeroboam  went  further  still.  Bull-worship, 
though  a  genuine  Israelitish  institution,  had  never 
been  the  official  worship.  Although  it  may  have  been 
carried  on  in  some  of  the  smaller  temples,  it  had 
never  occurred  to  David  to  introduce  it  generally. 
But  this  was  done  by  Jeroboam.  He  went  back  to 
the  time  of  the  Judges.  Nay,  he  did  more :  he  made 
bull-worship  the  state-religion.  A  later  historian 
reckons  this  against  him  as  a  sin,  and  always  speaks 
of  "the  sins  of  Jeroboam,  the  son  of  Nebat;"*  but 
we  must  not  be  guided  by  his  opinion.  What  he 
condemned  was  at  the  time  approved.  None  of 
Jeroboam's  subjects  offered  any  opposition.  On  the 
contrary,  the  great  majority  unquestionably  applauded 
him  for  his  attachment  to  the  ancestral  worship. 

Still,  it  may  be  asked  whether  the  attitude  of  the 
prophets  towards  the  king  was  in  nowise  modified  by 
the  introduction  of  this  bull-worship.  But  we  cannot 
answer  the  question  with  any  certainty.  On  the 
one  hand,  it  appears  that  the  prophets  Elijah  and 
Elisha,  who  flourished  at  the  end  of  the  tenth  and  the 
beginning  of  the  ninth  centuries  before  Christ,  by  no 
means  opposed  the  bull-worship,  and  it  was  only  in 
the  eighth  century  that  some  of  the  most  advanced  of 

*  I  Kings,  xvi.  26,  31 ;  xxii.  52  ;  2  Kings,  iii.  3;  x.  29;  xiii. 
2,  ii ;  xiv.  24;  xv.  9,  1 8,  24,  28. 


The  Disruption  of  the  Kingdom.          101 

the  prophets  preached  against  it,  a  proof,  one  would 
think,  that  the  great  majority  saw  no  harm  in  it.  But, 
at  the  same  time,  it  is  certainly  possible  that  the  con- 
duct of  Jeroboam  was  disapproved  of  by  the  prophets 
of  his  day :  in  the  Book  of  Kings  *  we  are  told  that 
a  certain  prophet  of  Judah,  whose  name  is  not  given, 
as  well  as  Ahijah,  did  disapprove  of  it.  But  we  cannot 
place  much  confidence  in  the  statements,  for  both  the 
narratives  are  of  a  later  date  and  have  been  em- 
bellished. At  all  events,  the  opposition  was  not 
violent,  and  soon  left  off  altogether. 

Of  course,  the  mutual  relations  of  the  two  kingdoms 
could  not  be  of  the  most  friendly  kind.  At  first, 
indeed,  they  were  distinctly  hostile,  and  Jeroboam 
seems  to  have  conceived  the  design  of  bringing  Judah 
into  subjection  to  himself.  But  in  this  he  did  not 
succeed ;  and,  however  small  Judah  might  be,  it 
generally  contrived  to  maintain  its  independence. 
Continuing  under  the  same  dynasty,  that  of  David,  it 
escaped  those  court-intrigues  and  assassinations  which 
were  to  Ephraim  so  terrible  a  source  of  weakness. 
Once  only  does  Judah  appear  to  have  been  subjugated 
by  its  stronger  neighbor,  and  that  was  in  the  reigns 
of  Jehoash  and  Jeroboam  the  Second.  But  circum- 
stances were  more  favorable  to  Judah,  to  judge  from 
the  fact  that  it  maintained  its  national  existence  for 
about  150  years  longer  than  Ephraim. 

There  were  seasons,  however,  of  reconciliation 
*  i  Kings,  xiii.  xiv. 


IO2  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

between  the  sister  nations.  Some  kind  of  inter- 
course, especially  on  the  frontier,  no  doubt  there 
always  was ;  but  in  the  time  of  Ahab,  whose  daughter 
married  the  king  of  Judah,  their  relations  were  dis- 
tinctly those  of  friendship. 

The  condition  of  religion,  too,  remained  more  tran- 
quil in  Judah  than  in  Israel  or  Ephraim.  In  the 
latter,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  a  fierce  struggle  was 
carried  on  concerning  the  worship  of  Yahweh,  a 
struggle  which  was  of  the  utmost  moment  in  the 
further  development  of  the  Israelitish  religion,  and 
most  important  from  an  historical  point  of  view.  In 
that  struggle  the  very  existence  of  the  Yahweh- 
religion  was  at  stake,  and  for  a  time  it  stood  in  the 
greatest  danger  of  extirpation.  But  the  state  of  affairs 
in  Judah  was  altogether  different.  There,  the  temple 
remained  the  national  sanctuary,  dedicated  to  the 
nation's  god ;  and  though  in  Judah,  too,  worship  was 
continually  accorded  to  other  gods,  no  struggle  against 
Yahweh  ever  took  place  there,  as  it  did  in  Ephraim. 
On  the  one  hand,  then,  things  went  better  here,  and 
less  risk  was  run  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  Judah 
rendered  less  assistance  during  this  early  period  in 
the  development  of  Yahwism.  Judah  shared  in  the 
benefit  of  Israel's  struggle,  but  for  all  that  it  does  not 
interest  us  at  first  to  at  all  the  same  degree  as 
Ephraim.  To  this  latter  kingdom,  then,  we  will  in  the 
first  place  turn  our  attention. 


The  Kingdom  of  Israel.  103 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE    KINGDOM   OF    ISRAEL. 

T  T  7E  have  already  seen  what  was  the  condition  of 
*  *  religion  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel  shortly  after 
the  disruption.  Yahweh  was  worshiped  there  as  the 
national  god,  in  the  form  of  a  bull,  without  any  one 
offering  any  opposition.  This  continued  to  be  so 
under  the  succeeding  kings.  The  historian  passes  a 
very  unfavorable  judgment  on  most  of  them,  alleging 
that  they  did  evil  in  the  sight  of  Yahweh,  and  that 
they  cleaved  unto  the  sins  of  Jeroboam,  the  son  of 
Nebat.  Ahab,  the  son  of  Omri,  is  drawn  in  the 
blackest  colors  of  all.  He  had  married  Jezebel,  a 
daughter  of  Ethbaal,  king  of  the  Tyrians.  He  seems 
to  have  been  very  much  under  this  woman's  influence. 
At  any  rate,  he  built  a  temple  to  the  Tyrian  god, 
Baal,  at  his  residence  of  Samaria,  and  erected  the 
"ashera,"  a  stunted  column  symbolic  of  the  goddess 
Ashera. 

We  must  not  assume  on  this  account  that  Ahab  did 
not  worship  Yahweh.  On  the  contrary,  he  would 
seem — at  first,  at  any  rate  —  to  have  acknowledged 
Yahweh's  prophets,  and  to  have  accepted  their  word 
as  that  of  Yahweh.  Moreover,  the  names  of  his 


IO4  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

children  are  compounded  of  that  of  Yahweh.  From 
this  we  may  gather  that  he  not  only  recognized 
Yahweh  as  the  national  god  of  Israel,  but  accorded 
him  service.  But  to  this  he  added  the  sendee  of  Baal. 
This  Baal  was  not  the  god  of  the  country,  whom  the 
Israelites  had  almost  always  worshiped  since  their 
arrival  in  Canaan,  but  the  Tyrian  god  of  the  same 
name,  —  not,  indeed,  very  different  from  the  Canaan- 
itish  god,  but  still,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  an  importation 
from  abroad.  His  foreign  extraction  made  him  seem 
to  the  prophets  all  the  more  hostile  to  the  national 
god,  Yahweh.  To  make  matters  worse,  the  king 
encouraged  this  Baal-service  at  the  court  itself  with- 
out the  least  disguise.  A  multitude  of  priests — many 
of  them,  no  doubt,  foreigners  —  served  in  the  temple  : 
and  their  influence  was  very  powerful.  We  must 
remember,  besides,  that  the  worship  of  Baal  and 
Ashera  was  extremely  sensual,  so  that  it  could  not 
fail  to  arouse  the  liveliest  indignation  in  the  faithful 
followers  of  the  stern  and  holy  Yahweh. 

It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  Elijah,  the 
Tishbite,  appeared  upon  the  scene  as  the  leader  of 
the  prophets  and  the  whole  party  of  the  servants  of 
Yahweh.  He  and  his  friends  began  the  quarrel. 
Ahab  did  not  oppose  Yahweh  at  first,  but  the  quarrel 
was  forced  upon  him.  It  would  seem,  indeed,  that 
the  prophets  did  not  confine  themselves  to  spiritual 
weapons,  but  actually  had  recourse  to  violence.  This, 
however,  Ahab  could  not  pass  over;  and,  no  doubt, 


The  Kingdom  of  Israel.  105 

he  was  urged  by  Jezebel,  too,  to  make  himself  felt. 
So  he  began  to  persecute  the  prophets  of  Yahweh  and 
to  put  them  to  death.  And  now  a  season  of  terrible 
woe  broke  upon  the  servants  of  Israel's  god,  and  there 
seemed  at  first  to  be  great  danger  that  Baal  would 
triumph,  and  that  the  service  of  Yahweh  would  be 
uprooted.  The  historian  paints  a  sad  picture  of  the 
state  of  things  in  those  days.  He  puts  into  Elijah's 
mouth  the  tragic  cry,  that  they  have  thrown  down  the 
altars  of  Israel's  god,  and  slain  the  prophets,  and  that 
he  alone  is  left.  And  even  he  was  obliged,  for  a 
time,  to  quit  his  country  and  seek  a  refuge  elsewhere. 
Yet  his  courage  never  flagged,  and  he  never  rested 
from  the  struggle,  —  soon  to  meet  with  happier  suc- 
cess. The  accounts  of  this  struggle  which  have  come 
down  to  us  are  too  much  interwoven  with  legend  for 
us  to  build  upon,  or  even  to  extract  much  from. 
Elijah  is  said  to  have  foretold  a  three  years'  famine, 
and  at  its  close  to  have  challenged  the  priests  of  Baal 
to  a  decisive  contest  between  their  god  and  Yahweh. 
They  accepted  the  challenge,  so  the  story  goes,  and 
set  up  an  altar  on  Mount  Carmel,  and  besought  their 
god  to  send  fire  down  from  heaven  to  kindle  the 
sacrifice.  Their  entreaties  were  of  course  in  vain. 
But  Elijah,  we  are  told,  prayed  to  better  purpose.  A 
flash  of  lightning  consumed  his  offering,  and  proved 
that  Yahweh  was  God  indeed. 

Now  this  story,  beautiful,  and  indeed  sublime,  as  it 
is,  has  evidently  been  so  much  embellished  that  we 


106  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

cannot  even  tell  for  certain  whether  it  has  any  histori- 
cal foundation  at  all.  A  famine  may  really  have 
taken  place  and  led  many  Israelites  to  reflect,  and 
re-awakened  and  increased  the  zeal  for  Yahweh.  At 
any  rate,  not  only  did  the  persecution  cease,  but  Ahab 
thenceforward  treated  the  prophets  of  Yahweh  better 
and  paid  them  more  respect.  Towards  the  end  of 
his  life,  his  relations  with  them  were  thus  on  a  much 
better  footing,  and  we  find  them  once  more  accepted 
as  his  counsellors. 

It  would  not  be  easy  to  form  too  high  an  estimate 
of  Elijah's  influence.  He  was  a  man  of  strong  and 
impetuous  character,  well  calculated  to  produce  a 
profound  impression  upon  his  countrymen.  He  was 
a  stern  proclaimer  of  the  word  that  stirred  within 
him,  and  his  was  a  fiery  zeal.  He  shrank  from  no 
measures  of  violence,  and  from  no  persecutions,  to 
promote  the  honor  of  Yahweh.  He  would  suddenly 
appear  when  least  expected,  in  his  characteristic 
costume,  the  hairy  mantle  of  the  prophet ;  the  people 
recognized  him  and  feared  him  as  the  servant  of  the 
mighty  god  of  the  nation.  And  that  character  may 
be  seen  in  the  miracles  ascribed  to  him.  He  stands 
before  the  monarch  courageous  and  resolved ;  a 
blood-stained  struggle  has  for  him  no  terror,  and  he 
thinks  to  serve  Yahweh  well  in  extirpating  the  priests 
of  Baal.  He  is  a  man  of  deeds,  who  knows  his  own 
aims,  and  never  falters  in  their  accomplishment. 

The  influence  of  Elijah  was  all  the  greater,  too, 


The  Kingdom  of  Israel.  107 

that  he  stood  at  the  head  of  the  schools  of  the 
prophets,  and,  indeed,  of  the  whole  prophetic  party. 
They  all  looked  upon  him  as  their  master,  and  fol- 
lowed him  as  their  acknowledged  leader.  There  is 
no  trace  among  them  of  difference  of  opinion.  The 
great  struggle  between  Yahweh  and  Baal  united  them 
in  one  mind,  and  this  much  enhanced  their  strength 
as  a  party  in  the  state. 

Elisha  is  described  as  the  disciple  and  successor  of 
Elijah ;  and,  like  him,  he  appears  as  the  leader  of  the 
whole  party,  so  that  he  is  much  respected  even  at 
court.  He  wielded  a  powerful  influence,  but  hardly 
seems  to  have  produced  so  overwhelming  an  impres- 
sion as  Elijah.  The  power  accorded  to  him  by  tra- 
dition is  not  so  great,  and  he  only  builds  on  the 
foundations  laid  by  Elijah.  He  has  not  the  stern 
vigor  of  his  predecessor.  The  worship  of  Yahweh 
was,  nominally  at  least,  in  the  ascendant  in  his  time, 
and  all  that  he  had  to  do  was  to  hold  the  ground 
which  Elijah  had  won. 

There  are  no  other  prophets  in  connection  with 
whom  so  many  miracles  are  related  as  these  two 
men.  They  predict  coming  events;  they  heal  the 
sick  and  raise  the  dead ;  nay,  they  control  the  fire 
of  heaven.  Elijah  is  fed  by  ravens,  and,  by  the 
power  of  his  word,  prevents  the  oil  and  meal  of 
the  widow  of  Zarephath  from  growing  less ;  he  does 
not  die,  but  rides  to  heaven  in  a  chariot  drawn  by 
fiery  steeds.  It  is  just  the  same  with  Elisha:  he 


io8  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

makes  iron  float  on  water;  he  renders  poisonous 
viands  innocuous ;  and  he  punishes  the  children  who 
mock  him,  with  death.  He  restores  to  health  the 
leprous  Naaman  by  making  him  bathe  in  the  Jordan, 
and  by  his  word  his  deceitful  servant,  Gehazi,  is 
stricken  with  a  like  disease. 

That  such  stories  should  be  invented  about  them  is 
not  at  all  surprising.  It  is  only  that  legend  repro- 
duces in  its  own  forms  the  impression  which  these 
men  made  on  their  contemporaries.  They  are  the 
heroes  of  Yahweh,  men  of  unshaken  zeal  and 
courage,  whom  no  dangers  can  subdue.  They  are 
like  a  refining  furnace,  and  they  fill  all  men  with 
fear.  Their  own  minds  are  impressed  with  the  terri- 
ble and  awful  might  of  that  Yahweh  whose  repre- 
sentatives they  are,  and  they  themselves  appear  in 
the  self-same  character  which  they  ascribe  to  their 
god. 

It  has  been  thought  that  the  famous  account  of 
Yahweh's  appearance  to  Elijah  on  Mount  Horeb 
(i  Kings  xix.)  ought  to  be  interpreted  as  a  condemna- 
tion of  Elijah's  violence  and  of  the  slaughter  of  the 
priests  of  Baal,  inasmuch  as  it  is  there  said  that 
Yahweh  was  not  in  the  rushing  wind,  the  earthquake, 
or  the  lightning-flash,  but  in  the  whispering  of  the 
gentle  breeze.  But  those  who  urge  this  have  over- 
looked the  fact  that  this  is  the  very  occasion  on 
which  Elijah  receives  the  commission  to  anoint  as 
king  that  same  Jehu  who  was  to  extirpate  the 


The  Kingdom  of  Israel.  109 

house  of  Omri  and  to  quench  the  worship  of  Baal 
in  the  blood  of  his  priests  and  followers.  This, 
surely,  is  proof  enough  that  Yahweh  has  no  reproaches 
for  the  prophet's  zeal. 

We  have  said  that  Jehu,  the  son  of  Nimshi,  was 
destined  to  put  an  end  to  the  struggle  between  Yah- 
weh and  Baal;  for  we  must  not  imagine  that  the 
efforts  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  were  already  crowned 
with  all  the  success  that  they  desired.  It  is  true  that 
the  persecution  ceased,  and  that  Ahab  himself,  and 
Jiis  son,  Ahaziah,  after  him,  paid  honor  to  Yahweh 
and  consulted  him.  Nevertheless,  the  worship  of 
Baal  was  not  destroyed.  Ahaziah's  successor,  Jehoram, 
the  second  son  of  Ahab,  seems  to  have  governed  in  a 
different  spirit  from  his  father ;  at  least,  we  are  told 
that  he  removed  the  "pillar,"  that  is  the  symbol  of 
Baal  which  Ahab  had  made.  But  this  was  not  enough 
in  the  eyes  of  those  who  were  zealous  for  Yahweh : 
to  begin  with,  they  could  see  nothing  good  in 
Jehoram,  because  he  was  the  son  of  that  Ahab  whom 
Yahweh  had  rejected ;  and  then,  after  all,  Baal  was 
still  worshiped  in  Israel.  Thus  it  came  about  that 
the  party  of  the  prophets  set  their  hearts  on  having  a 
new  dynasty.  They  had  no  hope  of  any  salvation  or 
any  permanent  improvement  under  the  old  one.  They 
thought  that  a  new  king,  raised  to  the  throne  by  their 
aid,  would  more  powerfully  defend  their  views  and 
aims  and  allow  himself  to  be  guided  by  the  spirit 
that  actuated  them.  Jehu  was  the  very  man  for 


no  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

them.  His  reign  completely  answered  to  the  expecta- 
tions of  the  strict  Yahweh  party.  He  not  only 
exterminated  the  family  of  Omri,  but  razed  the  temple 
of  Baal  at  Samaria  to  the  ground,  and  put  all  the  fol- 
lowers of  the  god  there  to  death.  Jehu  was  the  first 
prince  who  was  animated  by  zeal  akin  to  that  of  the 
prophets,  and  he  accomplished  what  Elijah  had 
desired.  The  latter,  it  is  true,  did  not  live  to  see  the 
triumph,  but  it  was  he  who  had  made  it  possible. 
Yahweh  had  come  off  victor  in  the  struggle  with 
Baal. 

It  would  not  be  easy  to  overrate  the  significance  of 
this  event.  It  is  an  important  turning-point  in  the 
history  of  Israel's  religious  progress,  and  not  in 
Israel's  only,  but  in  Judah's  too  ;  for  the  influence  of 
Elijah's  labors  and  of  Jehu's  zeal  made  itself  felt  in 
the  southern  kingdom  a  few  years  later,  as  we  shall 
presently  see.  Followers  of  Baal  did,  indeed,  long 
remain  in  Israel,  as  was  only  to  be  expected;  but 
Yahweh  was  acknowledged  once  for  all  as  Israel's 
god.  Henceforward  there  was  no  more  change.  In 
the  minds  of  the  people  the  service  of  Yahweh  was 
established  as  the  one  purely  national  worship.  And 
although  here  and  there  it  was  still  mixed  with  the 
service  of  other  gods,  these  took  an  inferior  position ; 
none  of  them  could  be  compared  with  Yahweh. 

We  have  no  literary  remains  —  or  hardly  any — of 
the  succeeding  century,  the  ninth  before  Christ.  Even 


The  Kingdom  of  Israel.  1 1 1 

the  accounts  of  this  period  in  the  second  Book  of 
Kings  and  the  second  of  Chronicles  are  meagre,  and 
somewhat  untrustworthy  as  well.  It  is  only  by  com- 
paring what  we  know  of  the  eighth  century  with  the 
ascertained  state  of  things  in  the  tenth,  that  we  find 
out  that  the  intervening  century,  the  ninth,  witnessed 
an  important  advance  in  the  religious  ideas  of  the 
prophets.  It  is  true  that  our  insight  into  details 
leaves  much  to  be  desired ;  but  the  outline  is  perfectly 
distinct. 

In  the  first  place,  we  may  reflect  that  the  defeat  of 
Baal  must  have  impressed  the  Yahweh-worshipers 
deeply  with  the  power  of  their  god.  The  conviction 
that  he  was  something  greater  than  other  gods,  which 
circumstances  suggested  and  confirmed,  would  lead 
them  to  ponder  on  the  question  in  what  the  differ- 
ence between  him  and  other  gods  consisted.  They 
had  already  long  believed,  indeed,  in  Yahweh's  supe- 
riority; but  they  had  only  ascribed  to  him  greater 
power  and  greater  severity  in  his  demands.  In  his 
essence,  in  his  nature,  they  had  hitherto  discerned 
no  difference.  Yahweh  was  closely  related  to  the 
nature-gods,  and  above  all  to  Molech  and  Astarte; 
he  was  the  fire-god  and  the  light-god,  jealous  of  his 
honor,  terrible  in  his  chastisements.  But  now  thoughts 
very  different  began  to  enter  into  their  notion  of 
Yahweh's  nature.  The  movement  of  events  and  the 
national  fortunes  rendered  this  almost  inevitable. 
For  the  condition  of  Israel,  no  less  than  that  of 


112  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

Judah,  was  anything  but  happy.  Hazael,  king  of 
Syria,  had  defeated  Ephraim,  and  almost  entirely 
deprived  it  of  power  for  the  moment.  Judah,  too, 
had  trembled  before  the  conqueror;  and,  meanwhile, 
intestine  quarrels  between  the  sister  peoples  had 
intensified  their  misery.  Was  it  not  natural  that  the 
prophets  should  ask  themselves  what  all  this  meant? 
And  the  only  possible  answer  was,  that  it  was  owing 
to  Yahweh's  displeasure,  and  his  anger  at  Israel's 
unfaithfulness  and  the  worship  of  strange  gods.  This 
mighty  god  was  jealous  for  his  worship,  and  punished 
the  unfaithfulness  of  his  people.  And  now  compari- 
sons were  made  with  the  prosperity  of  earlier  times, 
and  the  power  and  splendor  of  the  nation  under 
David  and  Solomon.  On  account  of  the  indissoluble 
connection  which  was  supposed  to  exist  between 
fidelity  to  Yahweh  and  outward  prosperity,  it  was 
taken  for  granted  that  in  those  good  old  times  Yahweh 
had  been  faithfully  served  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
other  gods,  and  that  was  why  he  had  then  conferred 
such  abundant  blessing  on  Israel.  And  if  the  olden 
times  were  presented  in  so  fair  a  light  to  their  imag- 
ination, they  could  not  fail,  on  the  other  hand,  to  be 
deeply  impressed  with  the  idea  that  the  present 
unhappiness  of  their  nation  was  due  to  the  neglect  of 
Yahweh's  claims.  And  on  this  thought  they  now  con- 
centrated their  attention.  Yahweh,  originally  the 
nature-god,  had  been  preached  even  by  Moses  as  the 
holy  one,  who  required  a  holy  and  strictly  moral  life 


The  Kingdom  of  Israel.  113 

in  his  followers.  And  now  it  was  seen  that  this  was  the 
most  important  thing  in  the  eyes  of  Yahweh,  and  so 
the  prophets  began  to  lay  all  the  stress  on  it.  They 
began  to  see  a  difference  between  Yahweh  and  the 
nature-gods,  and  to  leave  out  of  sight  that  side  of  his 
being  which  he  had  in  common  with  those  gods,  in 
order  to  emphasize  the  moral  and  spiritual  side. 
Thus  that  path  was  entered  on  which  could  not  but 
lead  to  a  spiritual  monotheism.  It  is  true  that  the 
other  gods  were  not  at  once  definitely  denied,  and 
that  the  recognition  of  Yahweh's  sole  spiritual  suprem- 
acy did  not  in  itself  involve  the  immediate  refusal  to 
believe  in  the  existence  of  any  other  gods,  but  still 
the  first  step  in  that  direction  had  been  taken,  and 
further  progress  had  been  made  possible. 

That  this  representation  of  the  progress  of  pro- 
phetic thought  is  in  the  main  correct,  may  be  seen 
from  the  writings  of  Amos,  Hosea,  and  in  Zecha- 
riah  ix.— xi.  These  prophets  appeared  in  the  kingdom 
of  the  ten  tribes,  in  the  eighth  century  before  Christ. 
In  the  same  century,  Isaiah  and  Micah,  their  spiritual 
kin,  lived  in  Judah ;  but  we  shall  speak  of  them  by 
and  by.  Amos  came  from  Tekoa,  in  Judah,  but  he 
betook  himself  to  the  kingdom  of  Ephraim,  to  proph- 
esy there.  Hosea  preached  at  the  end  of  the  reign 
of  Jeroboam  II.  and  subsequently,  from  775  to  745 
before  Christ.  Of  his  story  we  know  nothing.  The 
prophet,  whose  utterances  are  contained  in  chapters 
ix.,  x.,  and  xi.  of  Zechariah,  who  is  not  identical 


1 14  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

with  the  authors  of  chapters  i.  to  viii.,  and  must  be 
distinguished  from  the  writer  of  chapters  xii.  to  xiv. 
as  well,  lived  in  Judah,  in  the  days  of  Isaiah,  but  in 
all  probability,  preached  in  Israel.  Now  these  three 
prophets  occupy  a  much  higher  point  of  view  than 
their  predecessors.  In  opposition  to  the  bull-worship, 
they  preach  a  pure  monotheism.  Apparently  the 
other  gods  do  not  exist  at  all  for  them;  they  call 
them  nothing  and  vanity,  and  make  no  distinction 
between  them  and  their  images.  To  the  minds 
of  these  prophets  Yahweh  is  Lord  of  the  whole 
earth,  and  guides  the  destinies  of  all  nations.  He  is 
a  spiritual  being,  and  cannot  be  worshiped  in  the 
image  of  anything.  He  will  have  righteousness  and 
not  sacrifice ;  for  he  is  a  god  of  stern  morality,  and 
emphatically  demands  obedience  to  his  laws. 

No  one  can  help  seeing  that  these  prophets  are 
very  different 'from  Elijah  and  Elisha,  their  predeces- 
sors, and  stand  far  above  them.  If  the  latter  con- 
tended for  Yahweh  against  Baal,  Amos  and  Hosea 
are  zealous  for  a  spiritual  interpretation  of  Yahweh's 
nature.  By  them  Yahweh  is  made  greater,  purer,  and 
more  exalted.  If  the  wars  of  David  had  increased 
the  might  of  Yahweh  in  the  eyes  of  the  Israelites, 
here  was  something  more  than  might:  here  was  a 
belief  in  the  spirituality  of  Yahweh's  nature,  and  in 
his  moral  perfection. 

We  shall  recur  to  these  ideas  by  and  by,  in  refer- 
ring to  the  prophets  of  Judah ;  we  need  only  add,  at 


The  Kingdom  of  Israel.  ii$ 

present,  that  Amos,  and  those  who  felt  with  him, 
must  not  be  regarded  as  representing  the  whole  pro- 
phetic party.  Earlier — in  the  time  of  Elijah — the 
prophets  all  held  the  same  views,  and  constituted  a 
party  united  by  well-defined  principles.  But  things 
were  changed  now.  Amos  and  Hosea  were  opposed 
to  the  majority  of  the  prophets,  and  contended 
against  them,  just  as  much  as  against  the  people. 
Amos  expressly  declares  that  he  does  not  wish  to  be 
reckoned  as  one  of  them.  These  circumstances  can 
only  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  great  mass  of 
the  prophets  still  entertained  the  old  views,  while 
Amos  and  Hosea  had  acquired  new  ones.  They  had 
attained  to  a  clearer  insight,  a  profounder  interpreta- 
tion of  holy  things,  and  a  purer  piety,  and  had  left 
their  old  allies  far  behind.  Henceforward,  the  great 
prophets  stood  alone,  above  the  people,  and  above 
the  majority  of  the  servants  of  Yahweh. 

After  the  death  of  Jeroboam  II.,  under  whom 
Amos  and  Hosea  prophesied,  the  kingdom  of  Israel 
sped  swiftly  towards  its  ruin.  Once  more,  as  in 
earlier  times,  king  after  king  lost  his  life  by  con- 
spiracy, and  perpetual  changes  of  dynasty  weakened 
the  kingdom  more  and  more.  And  foreign  foes  added 
to  its  troubles ;  the  Assyrians  harassed  the  unhappy 
inhabitants  of  Ephraim  throughout  a  great  part  of 
the  eighth  century.  In  the  days  of  King  Menahem, 
(770  to  760  before  Christ)  the  Assyrians  threatened 


Ii6  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

Israel,  but  they  were  bought  off  for  a  great  price. 
Against  Pekah  (758  to  728  before  Christ),  came 
the  Assyrian  prince,  Tiglath-Pileser,  seizing  several 
Israelitish  cities,  and  carrying  away  the  inhabitants 
captive.  And  at  last  Shalmanezer  menaced  Samaria ; 
Hoshea  was  now  king  of  Israel,  and  it  was  only  by 
paying  tribute  that  he  averted  his  threatened  over- 
throw. But  he  soon  broke  faith,  and  then  he  saw 
Shalmanezer  besieging  his  capital,  Samaria.  After 
an  heroic  defence  of  three  years'  duration,  the  city 
was  taken  and  ravaged.  The  king  was  borne  off 
prisoner,  and  the  people  were  carried  into  Assyria. 

Thus  the  kingdom  of  Ephraim  came  to  an  end  719 
years  before  Christ.  Shalmanezer  transplanted  men 
of  foreign  stock  from  Babylon,  Cuthah,  Ava,  Hamath, 
and  Sepharvaim  into  the  conquered  land,  and  these, 
speedily  mixing  with  the  remaining  inhabitants,  re- 
ceived the  name  of  "  Samaritans."  We  shall  meet 
with  them  again  in  the  course  of  our  history.  But 
the  ancient  kingdom  of  Ephraim  was  never  re-estab- 
lished. 


The  Kingdom  of  Judah.  117 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE   KINGDOM    OF   JUDAH. 

A  FTER  the  disruption,  the  state  of  religion  in 
•*^  Judah  remained  the  same  as  it  had  been  under 
Solomon.  In  Israel  the  olden  bull-worship  was  brought 
in  again  by  Jeroboam ;  but  such  was  not  the  case  in 
Judah.  No  change  took  place  at  first.  The  temple 
continued  to  be  the  sanctuary  of  Yahweh,  and  the 
priests  belonging  to  the  temple  took  care  that  Yah- 
weh should  continue  to  be  worshiped  there  as  Israel's 
god.  With  this  worship,  however,  there  still  went 
along  the  worship  of  other  gods  as  well.  The  later 
historian  makes  this  a  reproach  against  the  kings  of 
Judah,  and  lays  the  sin  at  their  door.  But  we  must 
not  judge  them  by  the  standard  of  an  age  so  long 
after  their  own.  On  the  contrary,  we  must  remember 
that  in  the  tenth  and  ninth  centuries  before  Christ  the 
belief  in  the  existence  of  many  gods  was  universal 
among  the  Israelites,  and  that  only  a  comparatively 
small  party,  that  of  the  prophets,  generally  called  the 
"Mosaic"  party,  insisted  on  the  exclusive  worship  of 
Yahweh. 

Thus,  we  need  feel  no  surprise  that  there  were  in 
Judah  numerous  temples  and  images  of  the  native 


.n  8  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

gods  and  of  those  of  other  countries.  There  were 
pillars  and  stumps  of  trees  (symbols  of  Baal  and  Ash- 
era),  teraphim  (little  images  which  were  worshiped 
as  household  gods),  and  on  hills  and  under  large 
trees  there  were  altars  to  Yahweh,  as  well  as  the  so- 
called  "high  places/'  which  were  smaller  sanctuaries 
with  altars  in  the  form  of  a  truncated  cone,  where 
Yahweh  was  served  and  other  gods  along  with  him. 
At  first  this  state  of  things  continued  without  any 
serious  struggle  between  Yahweh  and  the  other  gods 
like  that  in  Israel.  There  was  more  peace  and  quiet 
in  the  southern  kingdom.  But  on  that  very  account 
there  came  to  be  no  slight  danger  of  Yahwism  and 
the  service  of  the  other  gods  getting  mixed  up 
together ;  and,  as  the  people  were  particularly  attached 
to  the  worship  of  the  old  gods  of  the  country,  there 
seems  to  have  been  some  fear  that  the  service  of 
Yahweh  might  ultimately  be  entirely  absorbed  by  it. 
It  was,  then,  a  happy  thing  that,  in  the  kingdom  of 
Ephraim,  a  struggle  broke  out  between  Yahweh  and 
Baal.  For,  as  we  have  seen,  that  struggle  made 
manifest  the  difference  between  the  two,  and  the 
superiority  which  was  latent  in  the  representation 
of  Yahweh  was  brought  to  light  and  further  developed. 
The  struggle  was  not  without  results  for  Judah  too ; 
indeed,  it  was,  in  some  degree,  carried  into  that 
kingdom.  Among  the  earlier  kings  there  was  not  one 
who  did  not  acknowledge  Yahweh  as  god  of  Israel ; 
and  Asa  and  Jehoshaphat  are  cordially  praised  for 


The  Kingdom  of  Judah.  1 19 

their  zeal  for  Yahweh.  But  Jehoshaphat's  son, 
Jehoram,  married  Athaliah,  a  daughter  of  Ahab  j  and 
their  son,  Ahaziah,  was  slain  by  Jehu  when  he  exter- 
minated the  family  of  Ahab.  Upon  this  Athaliah 
took  the  reins  of  government  into  her  own  hands. 
She  built  a  temple  to  Baal  at  Jerusalem,  not  intending 
to  show  any  hostility  to  Yahweh,  whom  she  fully 
acknowledged  as  a  god,  but  simply  to  put  Baal  on  a 
level  with  him,  as  her  father  had  done  before  her. 
But  the  strict  worshipers  of  Yahweh  could  not 
acquiesce  in  this.  Athaliah  lost  her  life  by  an  insur- 
rection, after  a  reign  of  no  more  than  six  years. 
Through  the  instrumentality  of  Jehoiada,  the  chief 
priest  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  her  grandson, 
Jehoash,  ascended  the  throne  of  his  fathers,  and  a 
covenant  was  made  between  Yahweh  and  his  people. 
All  this  shows  clearly  that  the  people  acknowledged 
Yahweh  as  their  national  god,  and  that,  however 
prone  to  serve  other  gods  besides  him,  they  insisted 
that  he  should  be  worshiped  as  the  first  and  foremost. 
Or,  even  if  we  may  not  attribute  the  rising  against 
Athaliah  to  the  people  at  large,  still  the  Mosaic  party, 
strengthened,  no  doubt,  by  the  triumph  of  their  allies 
in  Israel,  must  have  been  powerful  enough  to  get 
their  own  way  now  and  then.  Jehoash  himself  and 
his  three  successors,  "Amaziah,  Uzziah,  and  Jotham, 
are  commended  for  being  faithful  servants  of  Yah- 
weh, although  the  high  places  remained  undisturbed. 
Indeed,  however  much  this  angered  the  later  historian, 


I2O  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

it  was  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  day. 
Of  Ahaz  it  is  recorded,  with  the  severest  censure, 
that  he  sacrificed  his  son  to  Molech.  He  seems 
to  have  been  the  first  king  to  worship  Molech  so 
openly,  although  it  was  no  new  thing  in  Judah  to  serve 
him.  But  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  indignant  the 
prophets  must  have  been  at  such  doings  ;  and,  though 
our  information  on  this  point  is  extremely  scanty,  we 
see  from  the  sequel  how  vigorous  a  resistance  they 
must  have  offered. 

A  change  most  favorable  to  the  views  of  the 
prophets  took  place  under  Hezekiah,  the  son  and 
successor  of  Ahaz.  He  swept  away  the  high  places 
throughout  the  country,  and  broke  the  pillars  and  the 
asheras  and  the  images  of  Yahweh.  Beyond  this  our 
accounts  of  his  action  do  not  go ;  but  it  is  clear  that 
it  was  in  harmony  with  the  opinions  and  wishes  of  the 
Mosaic  party.  They  had  been  very  much  averse  to 
the  state  of  things  under  Ahaz,  and  no  doubt  they 
made  every  effort  to  bring  about  a  change.  In 
Hezekiah  they  found  a  man  after  their  own  heart; 
for  he  was  quite  inclined  to  use  strenuous  and  even 
violent  means  to  establish  the  exclusive  worship  of 
Yahweh. 

We  may  now  clearly  discriminate  two  very  different 
parties  in  Judah.  They  were  both  for  serving  Yahweh 
as  the  god  of  Israel,  but  one  of  them  still  continued 
in  sympathy  with  the  ideas  which  prevailed  in  the 


The  Kingdom  of  Judah.  121 

days  of  Solomon.  The  members  of  this  party  were 
cosmopolitan,  and  not  strictly  national  in  their  feel- 
ings, and  thought  it  right  to  serve  other  gods  —  the 
old  Canaanitish  ones,  for  instance,  and  those  of  the 
surrounding  peoples  —  as  well  as  Yahweh.  They 
did,  it  is  true,  honor  Yahweh  as  the  national  god,  but 
they  seem  to  have  done  so  in  the  fashion  character- 
istic of  the  high  places.  Opposed  to  these  stood  the 
other  party,  that  of  the  prophets,  and,  generally,  of 
all  the  strict  Yahweh-worshippers,  who  still,  indeed, 
acknowledged  the  existence  of  the  other  gods,  but 
wished  the  worship  of  Yahweh  to  be  the  one  sole 
worship  of  Israel,  —  a  sentiment  whicli"  explains 
their  zeal  against  sacrifice  on  the  high  places  and 
their  abhorrence  of  the  pillars  and  the  images  of  Baal. 
These  two  parties  struggled  for  supremacy  with  vary- 
ing fortune.  It  depended  more  on  the  views  of  the 
king  which  should  prevail,  than  on  anything  else. 
This  was  seen  in  the  case  of  Ahaz,  and  in  that  of 
Hezekiah  too.  And  thus  there  was  nothing  wonder- 
ful in  the  Mosaic  party  being  worsted  again  after  the 
death  of  Hezekiah ;  for  Manasseh,  who  succeeded 
him,  and  Manasseh's  son,  Amon,  too,  adopted  the 
opinions  of  the  other  party,  who,  after  suffering  the 
opposition  of  Hezekiah,  seem  to  have  left  no  stone 
unturned  to  bring  things  back  to  their  former  condi- 
tion. To  the  Mosaic  party,  indeed,  things  seemed  even 
worse  than  they  had  been  before ;  for  the  new  policy 
amounted  in  their  eyes  to  apostasy,  especially  when 
16 


122  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

Manasseh  introduced  once  more  the  abominable 
service  of  Molech,  and  slew  one  of  his  own  sons  and 
burnt  him  in  honor  of  that  god.  In  his  reign  the 
high  places  everywhere  appeared  again,  and  the 
symbols  of  other  gods  were  set  up  in  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem ;  for  instance,  the  wooden  stump  belong- 
ing to  Ashera.  In  short,  everything  that  Manasseh 
did  was  a  thorn  in  the  side  of  the  strict  followers  of 
Yahweh.  and  they  considered  it  a  good  riddance  when 
his  son,  Amon,  was  killed,  after  a  reign  of  only  two 
years.  The  Mosaic  party  now  had  another  oppor- 
tunity of  trying  whether  they  could  manage  to  set  up 
and  maintain  the  service  of  Yahweh,  to  the  exclusion 
of  all  other  worship.  To  that  end  it  was  essential 
that  they  should  try  to  establish  an  influence  over 
Josiah,  the  new  prince,  who  was  only  eight  years  old 
at  the  death  of  his  father,  and  win  him  over  to  their 
interests.  This  they  attempted,  and  their  efforts 
were  crowned  with  the  happiest  results.  In  the  year 
621  before  Christ,  Josiah,  now  in  the  eighteenth  year 
of  his  reign  began  a  thorough  reformation  which 
completely  answered  to  the  ideas  of  the  Mosaic 
party.  Even  before  that  he  had  given  indications 
that  he  was  an  upholder  of  the  exclusive  Yahweh- 
worship,  but  now  he  took  more  thorough-going  meas- 
ures. The  circumstances  that  led  up  to  this  are 
recorded  for  us  in  detail,  and  they  are  sufficiently 
important  to  detain  us  for  a  moment. 

Some  repairs  being  required  in  the  temple  at  Jeru- 


The  Kingdom  of  Judah.  123 

salem,  the  king  sends  his  secretary  to  Hilkiah,  the 
chief  priest,  with  a  message  about  the  contributions 
of  the  people  towards  the  expense  ;  whereupon  Hil- 
kiah takes  the  opportunity  of  telling  the  prince's 
secretary  that  he  has  found  the  book  of  the  law 
in  the  house  of  Yahweh.  The  secretary  takes  it 
with  him  to  the  palace  and  reads  it  to  the  king,  who 
is  thrown  into  great  consternation  on  discovering  how 
grievously  the  law  of  Yahweh  has  been  transgressed. 
So  he  sends  to  inquire  of  Huldah,  a  distinguished 
prophetess  at  Jerusalem,  whether  this  law  is  in  har- 
mony with  the  will  of  Yahweh,  and  she  replies  in  the 
affirmative.  Upon  this  Josiah  hesitates  no  longer. 
He  calls  the  people  together,  and  reads  the  book  of 
the  law  to  the  assembled  multitude.  Upon  this  the 
whole  people  enters  into  a  covenant  to  follow  Yahweh 
and  to  keep  the  words  of  this  law.  The  priests  are 
charged  to  make  a  beginning  immediately,  and  the 
first  thing  they  do  is  to  remove  from  the  temple 
everything  which  is  contrary  to  the  law,  and  everything 
which  is  connected  with  the  worship  of  other  gods, 
whether  Baal  or  Ashera  or  the  host  of  heaven.  The 
temple  of  Molech  and  the  chapels  built  by  Solomon 
are  entirely  demolished,  the  high  places  all  over  the 
kingdom  are  destroyed,  and  the  pillars  and  images 
cut  down.  And  those  priests  who  had  served  Yahweh 
on  the  high  places  are  compelled  to  come  to  Jerusa- 
lem and  be  attached  to  the  temple ;  but  they  are  not 
allowed  to  offer  sacrifice  like  the  Jerusalem  priests. 


1 24  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

In  short,  nothing  was  left  undone  to  exterminate  the 
worship  of  images  and  of  other  gods,  and  the  refor- 
mation was  as  sweeping  as  ever  it  could  be. 

The  account  of  this  reformation  in  2  Kings,  chapter 
xxiii.,  is  full  and  clear.  Nor  is  there  any  doubt  what 
objects  Josiah  had  in  view :  he  wanted  to  bring  about 
the  realization  of  the  wishes  of  the  Mosaic  party,  and 
was  for  putting  an  end  to  the  worship  of  any  gods 
besides  Yahweh  in  Judah,  and  for  confining  the 
offering  of  sacrifice  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  But 
if  so,  then  these  must  have  been  the  main  points  in 
the  book  which  had  been  found  by  Hilkiah,  and  had 
stimulated  the  king  to  play  the  reformer.  Happily, 
we  still  possess  this  book,  and  it  is  no  other  than 
Deuteronomy,  the  last  of  the  five  books  which  are 
called  after  Moses.  We  have  already  seen  that  in 
those  books  we  have  nothing  from  Moses  himself 
except  the  Ten  Words.  We  shall  have  to  speak  of 
the  origin  of  the  other  books  by  and  by ;  but  Deuter- 
onomy, from  the  44th  verse  of  the  fourth  chapter  to 
chapter  xxvi.  and  chapter  xxviii.  with  xxix.  i,  was 
written  at  this  time.  Who  the  author  was  we  do  not 
know,  but  he  was  a  champion  of  the  Mosaic  party, 
and  expressed  the  views  of  that  party  in  this  book  of 
laws.  He  makes  Moses  speak  as  the  lawgiver;  for, 
both  in  those  days  and  later  on,  it  was  considered 
quite  allowable  to  write  in  another  person's  name ; 
and  in  the  same  way  the  Mosaic  leaders  had  no 
hesitation  in  representing  the  book  to  have  been 


The  Kingdom  of  Judah.  125 

found  by  Hilkiah,   although,  of   course,  he,  at  any 
rate,  knew  that  it  had  only  just  been  drawn  up. 

The  writer  describes  how,  in  the  fortieth  year  of 
their  wanderings  in  the  wilderness,  Moses  called  the 
people  together  that  he  might  recall  the  main  part  of 
the  law  to  their  remembrance  before  he  died.  He 
speaks  with  profound  earnestness,  and  in  a  tone  of 
paternal  authority.  He  sternly  forbids  them  to  serve 
other  gods,  and  strenuously  insists  that,  when  the 
Israelites  have  entered  Canaan,  they  shall  utterly 
exterminate  the  inhabitants  of  the  land,  that  they  may 
not  be  infected  by  the  worship  of  their  gods.  Of 
course  such  a  commandment  had  no  bearing  on  the 
author's  own  times,  as  the  Canaanites  had  ceased 
to  have  any  separate  existence ;  but  it  served  to  bring 
into  bolder  relief  the  danger  and  impiety  of  apostasy 
from  Yahweh.  Great  stress  is  laid  on  the  injunc- 
tion to  confine  the  worship  of  Yahweh  to  the  temple 
at  Jerusalem.  Moreover,  none  but  priests  of  the 
tribe  of  Levi  are  to  serve  in  the  temple;  although 
nothing  is  said  about  limiting  such  service  to  those 
of  the  family  of  Aaron,  a  limitation  which  belongs  to 
a  much  later  date.  Besides  this,  the  lawgiver  gives 
certain  commandments  concerning  the  celebration 
of  the  three  high  festivals,  the  Passover,  the  Feast  of 
Weeks,  and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  These  festi- 
vals were  by  no  means  new,  and  we  meet  with  them 
in  more  ancient  sections  of  the  Pentateuch,  such  as 
the  so-called  Book  of  Covenants  (Exodus  xxi.-xxiii.) ; 


126  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

but  the  Deuteronomist  lays  down  more  definite  regu- 
lations. Then,  again,  he  gives  sundry  injunctions  in 
relation  to  things  "clean"  and  "unclean,"  and  to  the 
prohibition  of  certain  kinds  of  food.  In  the  com- 
mandment concerning  kings  in  chapter  xvii.,  verses  14 
to  20,  it  strikes  us  as  remarkable  that  he  forbids  pre- 
cisely those  things  which  Solomon  had  practised. 
The  king  is  not  to  trade  with  Egypt,  nor  to  have 
many  wives,  nor  to  gather  together  much  treasure, 
which  are  the  very  practices  which  history  ascribed  to 
Solomon.  And  we  may  see  from  this  how  little  that 
famous  prince  answered  to  the  ideal  which  now 
possessed  the  minds  of  the  prophetic  party. 

But- we  must  not  expatiate  any  further  at  present 
on  the  contents  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy.  It  is 
enough  for  our  purpose  to  know  the  principal  com- 
mandments, so  as  to  be  able  to  estimate  the  character 
of  the  reformation  which  Josiah  initiated.  In  this 
book  the  Mosaic  party  had  expressed  their  wishes, 
and  now  they  had  obtained  that  triumph  over  their 
opponents  which  they  had  so  long  desired :  the  king 
governed  in  accordance  with  their  views,  and  every- 
where put  their  principles  into  practice.  And  now 
they  were  inspired  with  the  brightest  anticipations. 
Surely  now  at  last  Yahweh  would  fulfill  his  glorious 
promises,  and  make  Israel  once  more  great  and 
mighty  as  of  old  !  Surely  men  now  should  see  that 
Yahweh  was  God,  and  that  Israel  was  his  people :  his 


The  Kingdom  of  Judah.  127 

law  was  strictly  kept,  and  surely  the  blessing  would 
not  be  held  back ! 


It  did  indeed  seem  at  first  as  if  the  reign  of  Josiah 
would  see  the  realization  of  these  anticipations.  The 
power  of  the  Assyrians,  always  full  of  danger  for 
Judah,  was  more  and  more  curtailed  by  the  Medes,  so 
that  Judah  soon  had  no  more  to  fear  from  them.  But, 
alas,  how  soon  was  the  sun  of  her  prosperity  to  set ! 
How  soon  was  the  ground  to  slip  away  from  under 
these  fair  hopes  of  Judah's  restoration !  In  the  year 
610  before  Christ,  when  Nineveh,  the  capital  of 
Assyria,  was  besieged  by  the  allied  Medes  and  Baby- 
lonians, Psammetichus,  the  king  of  Egypt,  died. 
Necho,  his  son,  resolved  to  extend  his  dominions  at 
the  expense  of  decaying  Assyria,  and  to  take  posses- 
sion of  Syria.  But  these  designs  seemed  to  Josiah 
fraught  with  peril  for  Judah,  and,  however  feeble  he 
might  b£  compared  with  Egypt,  he  made  up  his  mind 
that  he  would  try  to  frustrate  Necho's  purpose  by 
force  of  arms.  The  battle  was  fought  in  the  plain  of 
Megiddo,  but  fought,  alas !  with  unhappy  result  for 
Judah ;  for  her  troops  sustained  defeat,  and  Josiah, 
her  beloved  prince,  was  slain. 

The  news  of  this  disaster  fell  like  a  thunderbolt. 
It  was  not  only  that  the  immediate  future  was  very 
dark,  but  the  Mosaic  party  found  themselves  bitterly 
disappointed  in  their  religious  hopes.  Pious  men 
asked  in  bewilderment  what  must  now  be  thought  of 


128  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

Yahweh's  promises,  and,  above  all,  of  Yahweh's 
righteousness.  Had  the  people  failed,  then,  to  serve 
him  faithfully,  or  could  not  the  recent  conversion 
blot  out  the  sins  of  days  gone  by?  Was  it  possible 
that  Josiah  had  not  been  pious  enough,  and  could  it 
be  necessary  to  do  still  more  than  he  had  done? 

All  the  writings  which  have  come  down  to  us  from 
this  epoch  (the  end  of  the  seventh  and  the  beginning 
of  the  sixth  century  before  Christ)  show  what  a 
stimulus  to  reflection  was  afforded  by  the  tragic  termi- 
nation of  Josiah's  reign,  and  generally  by  the  incon- 
gruity which  there  seemed  to  be  between  Judah's 
fortunes  and  her  zealous  worship  of  Yahweh.  To 
this  period  belongs  the  composition  of  the  Book  of 
Job,  to  which  we  shall  return  by  and  by.  And  to  this 
period  belong  Jeremiah,  Habakkuk,  and  the  unknown 
writer  of  the  twelfth,  thirteenth,  and  fourteenth 
chapters  of  Zechariah  ;  while  Ezekiel  wrote  down  his 
prophecies  in  the  company  of  the  exiles  themselves 
during  the  early  years  of  the  captivity.  Other 
writings,  too,  the  greater  part  of  Lamentations  and 
some  of  the  Psalms,  date  from  this  season  of  woe. 
They  are  all  occupied  more  or  less  directly  with  this 
problem  so  hard  for  them  to  understand,  and  strive 
to  find  some  adequate  solution  of  it. 

But  to  the  old  party,  which  Josiah  had  suppressed, 
the  solution  did  not  by  any  means  present  so  much 
difficulty.  They  ascribed  Judah's  calamities  to  the 
extirpation  of  the  worship  of  the  other  gods.  And, 


The  Kingdom  of  Judah.  129 

in  accordance  with  this  view,  the  worship  of  the 
Baals  was  begun  again,  as  well  as  that  of  the  host  of 
heaven,  of  the  moon-goddess,  Astarte,  and  of  Molech. 
Sacrifice  was  once  more  zealously  offered  on  the  hills 
and  under  the  green  trees.  The  worship  of  the  gods 
of  old  was  revived  in  full  force.  And  bitter  are  the 
laments  of  the  prophets,  especially  of  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel,  over  this  mournful  state  of  thing.  For  our 
part,  however,  we  can  feel  no  great  surprise  that 
things  should  have  fallen  out  thus,  remembering  that, 
though  the  worship  of  other  gods  than  Yahweh  had 
been  suppressed,  it  still  had  too  strong  a  hold  on 
the  heart  of  the  people  to  be  extirpated.  Such,  then, 
was  the  attitude  of  either  party,  each  standing  in 
marked  opposition  to  the  other  and  reproaching  it 
with  the  disasters  of  their  common  country.  If  they 
had  but  presented  a  unanimous  front,  meanwhile,  to 
their  common  foe !  But,  alas !  here,  too,  they  were 
divided;  and  by  their  divisions  they  reduced  the 
strength  of  Judah.  And  so  the  nation  marched 
swiftly  towards  its  doom.  Immediately  on  the  death 
of  Josiah  the  people  had  proclaimed  Jehoahaz  king ; 
but  he  was  deposed  by  the  victorious  Necho,  and  was 
succeeded  by  Jehoiakim,  his  younger  brother.  In 
the  meantime  Nineveh  was  taken  by  the  Babylonians, 
so  that  the  struggle  between  them  and  the  Egyptians 
could  no  longer  be  averted.  In  the  year  604  before 
Christ  the  two  Armies  met  at  Carchemis  or  Circesium, 
where  the  Babylonians,  under  Nebuchadrezzar,  were 


130  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

completely  victorious.  Syria  at  once  fell  into  their 
hands,  and  Judah  also  was  obliged  to  submit  in 
6 10  before  Christ.  But  dependence  on  a  foreign 
monarch  was  intolerable  to  the  Mosaic  party;  and 
priests  and  prophets  urged  the  people  to  rise  and 
throw  off  the  yoke.  Jehoiakim  gave  ear  to  these 
counsels,  and  in  599  or  598  before  Christ  he  revolted 
from  Babylon.  He  himself,  however,  died  very 
shortly,  and  it  was  on  his  son,  Jehoiachin,  that  the 
consequences  of  his  conduct  fell.  Nebuchadrezzar 
laid  siege  to  Jerusalem,  and  in  the  year  597  before 
Christ  he  took  the  city.  Jehoiachin,  together  with  a 
great  many  distinguished  citizens,  was  carried  off  to 
Babylon,  and  the  victorious  invader  set  up  Zedekiah 
as  king.  But  the  national  party  still  refused  to 
abandon  the  struggle,  and  tried  to  fortify  themselves 
against  the  hated  conqueror  by  means  of  alliances 
with  the  surrounding  peoples.  Especially  did  they 
put  their  hope  in  Egypt,  and  when,  on  the  death  of 
Necho,  Hophra  ascended  the  throne,  Zedekiah,  fancy- 
ing that  he  might  count  on  his  assistance,  rebelled 
against  Nebuchadrezzar,  who  consequently  laid  seige 
to  Jerusalem  in  the  year  588  before  Christ.  For  a 
moment  he  was  compelled  to  raise  the  siege,  since 
Hophra  made  an  attempt  to  relieve  the  city.  But  it 
was  of  no  avail ;  and  Nebuchadrezzar  soon  appeared 
again,  and  in  the  year  586  he  captured  Jerusalem. 
Zedekiah  was  taken  to  Babylon,  after  having  his  eyes 
put  out.  The  city  and  the  temple  were  given  over  to 


The  Kingdom  of  Judah.  131 

the  flames,  and  large  numbers  of  the  inhabitants 
were  carried  captive  to  Babylon.  Gedaliah  became 
governor  of  the  remnant  of  the  people,  but  ere  long 
he  fell  by  the  hands  of  assassins.  Upon  this  most  of 
the  inhabitants  of  Judah  who  were  still  left  in  their 
native  land  fled  to  Egypt,  carrying  with  them  Jere- 
miah, who  there  found  his  grave.  Judah  was  utterly 
fallen,  and  the  whole  country  was  desolated. 

We  may  easily  conceive  what  were  the  feelings  of 
the  strict  followers  of  Yahweh  at  these  calamities. 
Up  to  the  last  they  had  deemed  such  a  result  impos- 
sible. Both  priests  and  prophets  were  firmly  con- 
vinced that  Yahweh  would  come  to  the  rescue  ;  and 
in  that  conviction  they  steadfastly  counseled  resistance 
to  the  Chaldeans  and  Babylonians.  Did  not  the 
sacrifice  smoke  upon  the  altar  in  the  temple  at  Jeru- 
salem? Was  not  the  law  kept?  Was  not  Yahweh 
served?  How,  then,  should  he  give  Judah  into  the 
hands  of  the  hated  Babylonians,  a  people  who  knew 
not  his  name,  and  worshiped  other  gods  ?  The  people 
might  not,  indeed,  be  so  prosperous  as  could  be 
wished,  but  that  was  no  reason  for  supposing  that  the 
heathen  would  triumph.  Yahweh  would  bring  them 
to  judgment.  Yahweh  would  bring  a  strong  hand 
against  them,  and  utterly  destroy  them.  And  so  they 
had  no  fear,  but  persisted  to  the  last  in  preaching 
resistance  to  Nebuchadrezzar  and  holding  up  the 
prospect  of  deliverance  at  the  hand  of  Yahweh. 

But  Jeremiah  was  an  exception.    While  priests  and 


132  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

prophets,  ay,  even  such  men  as  Habakkuk  and 
Zechariah  (xii.-xiv.),  blinded  by  their  conviction  that 
Judah  was  a  chosen  people,  and  their  faith  in  the 
permanence  of  their  nation,  could  not  imagine  that 
Jerusalem  should  fall,  Jeremiah  interpreted  things 
differently.  So  profoundly  was  he  impressed  with 
Yahweh's  holiness  and  righteousness,  that  he  saw  how 
little  the  service  in  the  temple  could  please  him. 
Righteous  Yahweh  must  punish  Judah,  and  give  her 
over  into  the  hands  of  her  foes.  Jeremiah's  love  for 
his  people  yielded  to  his  faith  in  the  holiness  of 
Yahweh.  He  prophesies  that  Judah  must  fall  and  go 
into  captivity  as  a  punishment  for  her  sins.  Impos- 
sible for  the  service  of  Yahweh  in  Jerusalem  and  the 
offerings  in  the  temple  to  atone  for  all  the  wrong- 
doing that  had  gone  before.  Sooner  would  Yahweh 
reject  his  people  than  that  his  holiness  should  fail. 
But  he  would  not  punish  Judah  for  ever  —  only  for  a 
time.  After  seventy  years  the  people  should  come 
back  from  Babylon.  Then,  but  not  till  then,  should 
Yahweh  be  appeased,  and  Judah  be  converted. 

Thus  did  Jeremiah,  though  left  almost  alone,  hold 
fast  by  his  convictions,  in  spite  of  the  insults  of  those 
to  whom  he  might  have  looked  for  sympathy  and  the 
charge  of  lack  of  patriotism,  and  thus  did  he  preach 
that  Judah  must  bow  her  neck  to  Babylon.  His 
countrymen  would  not  listen  to  him,  but  Judah  was 
overtaken  by  the  ruin  which  he  had  foreseen.  The 
event  showed  that  he  was  right,  and  posterity  accorded 


Prophecy.  133 

him  the  well-earned  meed  of  honor  which  his  contem- 
poraries had  withheld. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

PROPHECY. 

EFORE  we  pursue  the  thread  of  our  story  further, 
we  shall  do  well  to  devote  some  little  special 
attention  to  those  classes  of  men  who  exercised  a 
more  than  ordinary  influence  upon  the  religious  devel- 
opment of  the  people  of  Israel.  And  we  allude,  first 
of  all,  to  the  prophets.  It  is  true  that  we  have  already 
had  occasion  from  time  to  time  to  notice  them,  inas- 
much as  up  to  the  captivity  almost  all  that  was  great 
and  noble  in  Israel  proceeded  from  them.  But  it  is  of 
the  utmost  importance  that  we  should  acquire  a  correct 
idea  of  their  character  and  their  work ;  and  for  this 
reason  we  shall  now  give  the  subject  our  special 
attention.  Thus  we  shall  be  able  to  sketch  in  general 
outline  the  rise,  the  culmination,  and  the  decline  of 
that  peculiar  phenomenon  which  is  generally  known 
as  "Prophecy." 

The  Israelitish  prophets  occupy  a  distinct  place  of 
their  own  among  their  people.  They  stand  side  by 
side  with  the  priests  and  the  "sages,"  to  both  of  whom 
they  are  sometimes  in  antagonism.  So  thorough  is 


134  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

their  independence  that  they  often  oppose,  not  only 
the  princes,  but  even  the  priests  and  the  temple 
service,  and  with  the  utmost  freedom  pronounce 
unfavorable  judgment  on  the  sacrifices  which  are 
offered  to  Yahweh.  And  this  is  what  more  than 
anything  else  distinguishes  them  from  the  prophets 
whom  we  meet  with  among  other  peoples,  such  as  the 
Egyptians  and  the  Greeks.  The  latter  are  just  as 
closely  connected  with  the  temple-service  as  the  priests 
themselves.  Not  so  the  prophets  of  Israel.  They 
come  from  all  ranks  of  the  people, -high  and  low, 
and  some  of  them  are  of  priestly  families.  But  as 
prophets  they  take  a  distinct  rank  of  their  own ;  they 
are  quite  independent  of  all  others,  and  are  them- 
selves perfectly  conscious  of  their  independence. 

They  bear  various  names.  The  prophet  is  usually 
called  "nabi"  —  a  word  with  which  we  have  already 
made  acquaintance,  meaning  one  who  is  incited  or 
inspired  by  the  deity.  He  is  als-o  called  "seer." 
These  names,  however,  would  not  afford  us  sufficient 
knowledge  of  the  prophet's  character,  if  history  threw 
no  light  upon  the  subject.  We  may  lay  it  down  as 
the  general  characteristic  of  the  prophets  .that  they 
were  pious  men  who,  animated  by  a  holy  enthusiasm, 
felt  it  laid  upon  them  to  bear  testimony  to  Yahweh, 
to  declare  his  will,  and  to  urge  men  to  keep  his  com- 
mandments. They  believed  that  Yahweh  held  direct 
communication  with  them,  and  even  apprised  them 
habitually  of  his  intentions.  And  this  belief  took  all 


Prophecy.  135 

the  firmer  root,  because  their  ideas  were  not  arrived 
at  by  slow  investigation  or  earnest  reflection,  but  rather 
by  sudden  intuition.  Thus  they  ascribed  the  utter- 
ance of  their  moral  and  religious  convictions  to  the 
direct  operation  of  Yahweh  ;  and  so  they  called  their 
sayings  "  the  word  of  Yahweh,"  and  expected  others 
to  recognize  and  acknowledge  them  as  such.  They 
considered  themselves  the  interpreters  of  Yahweh, 
called  by  him  to  preach  his  word  to  Israel  and  to 
reveal  his  will. 

Prophecy  had  its  birth  in  the  days  of  Samuel.  It 
is  true,  as  we  have  already  mentioned,*  that  Moses 
was  called  a  prophet,  and  Deborah  a  prophetess ;  but 
this  is  only  the  mistake  of  later  writers,  and  it  is  true 
that  the  prophetic  inspiration,  properly  so  called,  did 
not  show  itself  till  long  after  Moses,  towards  the  end 
of  the  period  of  the  Judges.  It  is  by  no  means 
improbable  that  the  example  of  the  Canaanitish 
prophets  had  its  influence.  There  were,  indeed,  seers 
in  Israel  at  an  earlier  date,  that  is  to  say,  soothsayers ; 
but  they  busied  themselves  with  matters  altogether 
outside  the  sphere  of  religion,  while  the  one  sole  aim 
of  the  prophets  was  to  promote  the  worship  of  Yah- 
weh. All  at  once  we  find  large  societies  of  prophets 
appearing,  known  as  the  schools  of  the  prophets. 
The  first  mention  we  find  of  these  again,  after  Samuel, 
is  in  the  time  of  Elijah  and  Elisha,  whom  the  pro- 
phets honored  as  "fathers."  The  members  of  these 
*See  page  68. 


136  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

societies  were  so  numerous  as  sometimes  even  to  be 
counted  by  the  hundred,  like  the  prophets  of  Baal. 
They  were  consulted  by  princes  who  wanted  to  know 
the  will  of  Yahweh.  Thus  they  seem  at  this  time  to 
have  constituted  a  class  strictly  fenced  off,  and  recog- 
nized and  revered  alike  by  king  and  people.  About 
a  century  later,  in  the  time  of  Amos,  things  were 
changed  in  this  last  respect ;  and  the  prophetic  office 
had  come  to  be  regarded  as  a  means  of  livelihood, 
and  many  people  joined  the  ranks  without  the  proper 
inspiration  or  the  true  enthusiasm,  merely  for  the 
sake  of  leading  a  quiet,  comfortable  life.  The  result 
was  that  the  popular  respect  for  these  men  greatly 
declined,  and  Amos  himself  boasts  that  he  is  neither 
a  prophet  nor  the  son  of  a  prophet,  meaning  that  he 
did  not  belong  to  their  rank,  and  had  not  come  out 
of  their  schools — proof  enough  that,  in  his  opinion 
too,  their  olden  glory  was  departed  and  their  olden 
spirit  lacking. 

This  is  the  last  trace  of  the  schools  of  the  prophets 
that  we  find  in  history.  After  Amos  they  disappeared 
entirely.  It  would  seem  that  they  were  more  numer- 
ous in  Israel  than  in  Judah.  At  any  rate,  it  is  only 
in  the  former  that  we  meet  with  them. 

From  what  has  now  been  said  of  the  schools  of  the 
prophets,  it  will  be  seen  that  here,  too,  we  have  to 
deal  with  a  development  and  a  decline,  as  is  the  case 
in  every  phenomenon  in  the  history  of  religion.  Nor 
need  we  be  surprised  at  this.  At  first  these  societies 


Prophecy.  137 

were  very  favorable  to  the  awakening  and  intensifying 
of  national  feeling  in  Israel.  Young  men,  taken  from 
the  midst  of  the  nation,  penetrated  with  the  spirit  of 
Yahweh,  bore  glowing  witness  to  the  calling  of  Israel 
to  remain  true  to  the  god  of  its  fathers,  who  by  mighty 
deeds  had  shown  that  he  had  chosen  Israel  for  his 
peculiar  people.  These  efforts  were  crowned  with 
the  happiest  results,  and  it  would  not  be  easy  tx) 
exaggerate  the  influence  over  the  people  which  the 
prophets  thus  acquired.  But,  as  we  have  seen,  it  did 
not  always  remain  so.  In  large  societies,  enthusiasm 
cannot  long  maintain  itself  at  the  same  pitch,  and  by 
degrees  here,  too,  it  came  to  move  along  the  track  of 
custom.  Hence,  in  later  times,  many  young  men 
became  prophets,  attracted  by  the  honors  and  the 
gains  which  the  career  offered,  but  without  any  of  the 
prophetic  inspiration.  But  hence,  too,  when  the  schools 
of  the  prophets  were  on  the  decline,  the  genuine 
prophets,  men  really  possessed  by  the  spirit  of  Yahweh, 
stood  aloof  from,  and  even  in  contrast  to,  the  old 
societies.  That  same  Amos  who  made  it  his  boast 
that  he  was  neither  a  prophet,  in  the  ordinary  sense 
of  the  word,  nor  the  son  of  a  prophet,  declared  that 
Yahweh  had  taken  him  from  tending  the  flocks  and 
commanded  him  to  testify  before  Israel.  Thus 
prophecy  advanced  beyond  the  point  to  which  it  was 
carried  by  the  schools ;  and  its  progress  was  due  to 
individuals,  such  as  Amos,  Hosea,  Micah,  Isaiah, 
and  Jeremiah,  and  not  to  the  whole  class.  The  con- 
18 


138  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

sequence  was,  that  not  only  did  differences  of  opinion 
arise  among  the  prophets,  but  definite  hostility.  In 
Samuel's  times,  and  in  those  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  too, 
they  still  formed  an  united  party  under  the  guidance 
of  these  men  themselves,  and  we  hear  nothing  of  any 
differences  of  opinion  or  of  purpose ;  whereas,  in  the 
eighth  century  and  subsequently,  the  best  and  most 
advanced  prophets  opposed  the  general  body;  and 
just  as  Amos  was  ashamed  of  the  majority  of  the 
prophets,  Jeremiah  bitterly  complains  of  them,  and 
denounces  them  in  no  measured  terms.  He  is  con- 
scious that  there  is  a  deep  gulf  fixed  between  his  views 
and  theirs ;  he  opposes  them  with  all  his  might,  and 
calls  them  false  prophets, — just  as  they  in  their  turn 
resist  his  influence  in  every  way  in  their  power. 

This  advance  is  accompanied  by  a  change  in  the 
prophet's  method  of  working  which  we  must  not 
overlook.  Up  to  the  eighth  century  the  prophets 
acted  in  union  and  as  a  distinct  party ;  they  spoke  in 
the  name  of  a  large  body  of  persons,  and  were  con- 
scious of  the  power  which  this  circumstance  secured 
to  them  in  affairs  of  state.  Their  activity  had  no 
small  influence  on  national  politics.  In  Ephraim 
they  effected  several  revolutions,  and  often  succeeded 
in  placing  a  new  dynasty  on  the  throne,  inasmuch  as 
they  represented  the  sentiments  of  a  large  section  of 
the  nation.  This  was  the  case  with  Samuel,  and 
with  Elijah  and  Elisha  also.  They  were  not  preachers, 


Prophecy.  139 

properly  so  called,  but  men  of  action  v/ho  took  part 
in  affairs.  But  the  great  prophets  of  the  eighth  and 
seventh  centuries  were  men  of  another  stamp;  they 
were  no  longer  the  spokesmen  of  a  party ;  they  were 
no  longer  supported  by  a  numerous  following.  On 
the  contrary,  they  stood  almost  alone.  The  fact  of 
their  being  so  much  in  advance  of  the  majority  of 
the  prophets  deprived  them  of  their  assistance  and 
co-operation,  and  at  the  same  time  of  much  of  their 
influence  in  affairs  of  state.  They  were  thus  reduced 
to  confine  themselves  more  and  more  to  the  one 
thing  by  which  they  could  exercise  power,  that  is  their 
preaching.  They  made  themselves  heard  wherever 
they  could,  in  the  temple  at  Bethel,  in  that  at  Jeru- 
salem, in  streets  and  squares,  and  wherever  they  could 
find  ears  to  listen  to  them.  Thus  they  came  to  be 
men  of  speech,  and  testified  of  Yahweh,  and  com- 
municated his  commandments  to  all  who  would 
hearken. 

And  it  is  these  men  that  we  have  to  thank  for  the 
sublimity  to  which  the  religion  of  Israel  attained. 
Samuel  preserved  Yahwism  from  perishing  before  the 
power  of  the  Canaanitish  religion;  Elijah  and  his 
school  defended  the  reverence  and  service  of  Yahweh 
against  the  Tyrian  Baal ;  but  the  prophets  of  the 
eighth  and  seventh  centuries  ascribed  an  ever-increas- 
ing loftiness  and  purity  to  Yahweh's  own  being?  and 
with  great  force  urged  and  further  advanced  the 
belief  in  his  unity  and  his  moral  and  spiritual  char- 


140  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

acter.  We  have  already  come  across  these  men  in 
dealing  with  the  history  of  Judah  and  Israel ;  and  we 
will  now  try  to  sketch  in  a  few  strokes  the  exalted 
conception  of  Yahweh  which  we  meet  with  in  them. 

Amos,  Hosea,  Micah,  and  Isaiah  are  the  first  strict 
monotheists.  While  the  other  gods  had  hitherto 
been  believed  to  exist  side  by  side  with  Yahweh,  and 
the  contemporaries  of  these  men  still  held  that  view, 
they  themselves  place  these  gods  on  a  par  with  their 
images,  and  draw  no  distinction  between  worshiping 
strange  gods  and  image-worship.  The  other  gods  are 
not  real  gods  at  all.  Yahweh  is  sole  lord  of  heaven 
and  earth ;  and  Yahweh  is  only  to  be  served. 

The  duty  of  serving  Yahweh  rests  in  the  first  place 
with  Israel.  For  Yahweh  has  chosen  Israel  to  be  his 
peculiar  people,  and  loves  Israel  with  the  tenderest 
love,  as  a  man  loves  his  wife,  He  has  always  poured 
out  his  blessing  upon  Israel ;  he  has  led  it  ever  since 
he  brought  it  out  from  Egypt,  and  has  never  wearied 
in  his  loving-kindness  or  his  faithfulness.  But  Israel 
is  bound  in  return  to  honor  Yahweh  as  its  god. 
Israel  must  consider  the  close  and  tender  relation 
which  subsists  between  Yahweh  and  his  people  and 
keep  his  commandments  accordingly.  And  it  is  most 
of  all  .worthy  of  notice  that,  according  to  the  prophets, 
these  commandments  are  all  of  a  moral  nature. 
Obedience  is  better  than  burnt-offerings.  Yahweh 
has  no  pleasure  in  rams  and  goats,  but  desires 
righteousness  and  mercy,  cleanness  of  heart  and  life. 


Prophecy.  141 

In  short,  so  deeply  were  the  prophets  impressed  with 
the  holiness  of  their  god,  that  they  taught  their 
countrymen  that  only  by  a  strictly  moral  life  could 
they  serve  him. 

And  their  expectation  with  regard  to  the  future  of 
their  nation  was  closely  connected  with  these  views. 
We  shall  presently  deal  with  this  subject  at  greater 
length,  and  need  now  only  mention  the  main  point  of 
that  expectation.  They  cherished  the  hope  that  one 
day  Israel  should  altogether  belong  to  Yahweh,  and 
serve  him  with  abiding  zeal ;  so  that  here,  too,  their 
preaching  bore  a  moral  character,  which,  however 
much  it  might  vary  according  to  the  peculiarities  of 
the  individual  prophet,  was  always  conspicuous,  and 
must  ever  excite  our  reverence  for  the  pure  and  holy 
spirit  which  animated  them  and  for  the  sincerity  of 
their  piety. 

Seeing  that  the  prophets  looked  at  everything 
which  concerned  Israel  in  connection  with  the  spir- 
itual relation  between  Yahweh  and  his  people,  it  was 
natural  enough  that  they  should  express  opinions 
about  affairs  of  state.  They  were  not,  however, 
•  guided  by  political  principles,  but  solely  by  their 
theocratic  opinions.  Thus  Isaiah  warned  his  con- 
temporaries against  any  alliance  with  Assyria  or 
Egypt,  such  as  many  were  recommending  at  the  time 
because  he  could  see  no  hope  of  safety  except  in  a 
return  to  Yahweh  and  fidelity  to  his  commandments. 
Jeremiah,  on  the  other  hand,  more  than  a  century 


142  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

afterwards,  exhorted  his  countrymen  to  submit  to  the 
Chaldeans,  though  the  Mosaic  party  were  doing  all 
they  could  to  encourage  resistance.  The  reason  was, 
that  he  was  thoroughly  convinced  that  the  sins  of 
Israel  could  not  escape  punishment  at  the  hands  of 
Yahweh,  and  that  the  fall  of  Judah  could,  therefore, 
no  longer  be  averted.  Both  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah 
were  directly  moved  to  take  the  line  they  did  by 
their  religious  convictions,  and  not  by  political  con- 
siderations. 

If  we  proceed  to  inquire  what  influence  the 
prophets  exercised  on  their  contemporaries,  it  seems 
that  the  answer  cannot  be  of  a  very  satisfactory  nature. 
The  prophetic  writings  which  have  come  down  to  us 
are  full  of  endless  lamentations  over  the  sins  of  the 
people,  their  going  after  strange  gods,  their  image- 
worship,  their  unfaithfulness  to  Yahweh,  their  frivolity 
and  their  immorality.  This  kind  of  complaint  is  so 
general  with  the  prophets,  that  we  can  only  suppose 
that  it  expressed  their  universal  experience ;  from 
which  it  would  appear  that  their  influence  over  the 
people  was  not  very  great.  They  did,  of  course, 
find  some  kindred  spirits  who  became  their  friends 
and  disciples,  but  as  a  rule  these  were  but  a  small 
minority.  Nor  can  we  be  at  all  surprised  at  this  when 
we  reflect  on  the  changes  that  had  come  over  the 
prophets  themselves.  In  the  olden  times,  such  men 
as  Samuel  or  Elijah  and  Elisha  held  opinions  very 


Prophecy.  143 

like  those  of  the  rest  of  the  Yahweh  party ;  so  that 
they  were  more  in  sympathy  with  the  people  and  were 
able  to  exercise  a  powerful  influence  over  them.  But 
when  some  of  the  prophets  had  attained  to  a  deeper 
religious  insight,  and  had  risen  above  the  mass  of 
their  own  colleagues,  the  divergence  between  them 
and  the  people  grew  too  great.  Such  a  man  as  Isaiah 
was  not  understood  by  the  multitude ;  with  his 
monotheism  and  his  purely  moral  principles,  he  stood 
too  far  above  the  men  of  Jerusalem,  who  were  willing 
enough  to  worship  Yahweh,  but  worshiped  other 
gods  along  with  him.  And  Jeremiah  was  so  much 
in  advance  of  his  contemporaries,  that  even  such 
men  as  Habakkuk  and  Zechariah  (xii.-xiv.).  most 
strict  Yahweh -worshipers  and  prophets  though  they 
were,  were  nevertheless  opposed  to  him.  What  must 
other  people  have  thought  of  him,  then,  and  how 
scanty  must  his  influence  have  been !  Nor  was  the 
case  different  with  the  famous  prophet  of  the  captivity 
generally  known  as  the  second  Isaiah.  Men  might, 
indeed,  listen  to  him,  and  even  rejoice  at  his  glorious 
predictions ;  but  as  for  shaping  their  lives  in  harmony 
with  the  spirit  of  his  teaching,  they  never  thought  of 
it,  for  he,  too,  stood  far  in  advance  of  the  great  mass 
of  the  people. 

To  this  we  must  add  that  a  different  spirit,  that  of 
the  scribes,  began,  to  make  itself  felt  in  Israel  after 
the  captivity,  while  a  different  power,  that  of  the 
priests,  rose  to  the  ascendant.  The  authority  of  the 


144  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

Law  now  took  the  place  of  the  freedom  of  the 
prophets  and  their  inspiring  utterances.  Men  no 
longer  heard  Yahweh's  word,  or  spoke  from  out  of 
the  treasure  of  their  hearts,  but  they  cultivated  a 
habit  of  intellectual  reflection  on  what  Yahweh  had 
uttered  in  ages  gone  by.  This  was  the  death-knell  of 
prophecy.  It  is  true  that  here  and  there  a  voice 
might  still  be  heard,  but  this  was  but  a  faint  and 
feeble  echo  of  the  mighty  voices  of  the  past.  The 
spirit  of  prophecy  was  crushed  out  beneath  the 
pressure  of  the  Law,  and  after  Ezra  no  prophet  arose 
in  Israel. 

We  see  distinct  indications  that  prophecy  was 
pining  away  in  Haggai,  Zechariah  (i.-viii.),  and  Mala- 
chi,  the  most  prominent  prophets  of  the  age  which 
followed  the  captivity.  They  speak  under  the  shadow 
of  a  profound  disappointment,  from  which  they 
cannot  escape.  They  cannot  conceal  from  them- 
selves the  fact  that  the  fair  anticipations  of  the  older 
prophets  have  not  been  fulfilled.  Jeremiah  had  spoken 
of  seventy  years;  the  second  Isaiah  had  predicted 
the  fall  of  Babylon  and  the  ensuing  restoration  of 
Israel.  But,  alas !  the  seventy  years  were  gone,  and 
Babylon  was  fallen,  yet  the  woe  of  Israel  was  not 
removed.  What  wonder  that  zeal  should  wane,  when 
men  had  lamentations  such  as  these  to  utter,  or  that 
enthusiasm  could  not  sustain  itself?  Its  place  is 
usurped  by  that  sober  thoughtfulness  and  calm  reflec- 
tion which  busies  itself  with  investigating  a  state  of 


Prophecy.  145 

affairs  which  it  no  longer  understands.  And  if  we 
further  observe  how  different  is  the  ideal  of  a  pious 
Israelite  from  what  it  used  to  be,  no  longer  of  the 
free  prophetic  type,  we  cannot  be  surprised  at  proph- 
ecy dying  out  of  Israel. 

We  must  not  leave  this  subject  without  a  word 
about  the  so-called  false  prophets.  We  have  already 
seen  that  the  great  men  of  the  eighth  and  following 
centuries  had  to  act  in  opposition  to  the  majority. 
This  was,  above  all,  the  case  with  Jeremiah.  He 
stood  almost  alone.  All  who  were  opposed  to  him 
were,  to  his  thinking,  false  prophets,  that  is  to  say, 
they  did  not  testify  rightly  concerning  Yahweh.  On 
the  other  hand,  his  opponents  reproached  him  with 
being  no  true  prophet  of  the  god  of  Israel.  The 
writer  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  too,  utters  warn- 
ings against  false  prophets.  No  man  may  prophesy 
what  Yahweh  has  not  put  into  his  mouth,  and  no 
man  may  prophesy  in  the  name  of  other  gods.  And 
hereby  shall  the  people  know  whether  a  man  be  a 
true  prophet :  if  his  words  are  not  confirmed  by  the 
event,  or,  if  he  encourages  men  to  worship  other  gods, 
then  he  is  no  servant  of  Yahweh.  He  only  can  be  a 
true  prophet  who  remains  faithful  to  Yahweh. 


146  The  Religion  of  Israel. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE   MESSIANIC    EXPECTATION. 

TF  we  now  turn  our  attention  specially  to  the 
•*•  Messianic  Expectation  of  the  prophets,  it  is  not 
because  what  they  say  on  this  subject  constitutes 
a  preponderating  part  of  their  preaching,  or  is  more 
important  than  all  the  rest,  but  only  because  their 
expressions  have  hitherto  been  represented  in  so  per- 
verse a  manner  as  to  render  it  necessary  that  we 
should  set  ourselves  to  place  them  in  the  true  light 
of  history. 

We  have  made  acquaintance  with  the  prophets  as 
preachers  of  Yahweh,  the  god  of  Israel.  They  had  a 
lively  idea  of  his  power  and  glory,  and  his  holiness 
and  righteousness.  They  were  thoroughly  convinced 
that  his  rule  extended  to  the  whole  world  of  nature 
and  of  man,  and  that  all  his  divine  commands  must 
be  complied  with.  And  if  this  was  not  yet  the  case, 
they  were  well  assured  that  the  time  must  come  when 
it  would  be,  since  Yahweh  had  dominion.  These  two 
conceptions  were  most  intimately  connected  together, 
just  as,  in  general,  all  pious  men  in  every  age  have 
cherished  the  certain  hope  that  there  was  a  good  time 
coming,  for  which  God  had  destined  mankind.  The 


The  Messianic  Expectation.  147 

hopes  which  the  prophets  of  Israel  indulged  are 
peculiar  only  in  the  form  in  which  they  are  expressed. 

We  usually  call  this  hope  of  theirs  the  "  Messianic 
Expectation,"  from  the  Hebrew  word  "Messiah/'  in 
Greek,  "  Christ "  ;  and  in  English,  "  an  anointed  one," 
or  a  king.  Many  of  the  prophets  gave  expression  to 
their  hopes  of  better  times  in  the  form  of  a  prediction 
that  a  king,  or  "  Messiah,"  should  appear.  And 
because  this  form  of  the  expectation  came  to  be  the 
best  known,  and  most  celebrated,  it  is  called  "  Mes- 
sianic "  in  all  its  forms,  although  several  of  the 
prophets  never  said  a  word  about  any  such  Messiah. 

We  need  not  be  surprised  to  find  traces  of  this 
hope  of  a  good  time  coming  in  other  writings  besides 
those  which  are  properly  called  prophetic.  We  find 
it  definitely  expressed  in  some  of  the  historical  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  which  is  the  less  to  be  won- 
dered at  when  we  remember  that  these  books  were, 
to  a  great  extent,  written  by  prophets.  Thus,  in 
Genesis  xii.  2,  the  promise  is  given  to  Abraham,  "In 
thee  shall  all  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed  "  ;  which 
means,  all  nations  shall  gaze  upon  you  and  desire 
such  prosperity  as  yours  for  themselves.  This  is 
evidently  meant  to  express  the  anticipation  of  a 
glorious  future  for  Israel.  In  2  Samuel  vii.'  12—16,  a 
speech  is  put  into  Nathan's  mouth,  in  which  he 
promises  David  that  the  crown  shall  be  hereditary  in 
his  house.  Yahweh  shall  love  his  family  as  a  father 
loves  his  child,  and  establish  his  seat  of  government 


148  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

for  ever.  '  This  is  an  expectation  belonging  to  a  later 
period,  and  similar  to  what  we  shall  presently  meet 
with  again  in  some  of  the  prophets. 

The  most  general  form  in  which  the  older  prophets 
express  their  anticipations  is  this:  that  a  blessed 
future  shall  dawn  for  Israel  as  the  people  of  God. 
The  belief  in  the  immortality  of  man  had  not  yet 
arisen ;  it  was  thought  that  the  spirit  was  annihilated 
at  death,  or  returned  to  Yahweh  who  had  given  it. 
But  it  was  believed  that  the  nation  would  endure  and 
be  blessed.  Yahweh  would  hold  a  judgment,  and  a 
portion  of  the  people  would  repent  and  serve  him  as 
in  the  days  of  old.  Then  it  was  thought  that  a  time 
of  peace  and  happiness  would  dawn  for  Israel ;  and 
the  sister-peoples,  Ephraim  and  Judah,  would  be 
united  and  share  the  blessing  of  Yahweh.  The  land 
would  produce  abundant  corn  and  wine ;  dearth  and 
famine  should  be  no  more;  there  should  be  peace 
with  the  surrounding  peoples;  swords  and  spears 
should  be  beaten  into  scythes  and  pruning-hooks. 

Amos,  Hosea,  Zechariah  (ix.-xi.),  Micah  and  Isaiah 
agree  in  this  fair  sketch  of  the  coming  time.  They 
express  their  anticipations  in  the  most  beautiful 
imagery,  and  sometimes  in  language  of  great  sub- 
limity. Amos  (in  ix.  1 1,  with  which  may  be  compared, 
also,  Hosea  iii.  5)  expresses  the  further  expectation 
that  Yahweh  will  set  up  the  fallen  tabernacle  of 
David,  meaning  that  Ephraim  and  Judah  shall  be 


The  Messianic  Expectation.  149 

united  under  David's  house,  while  Isaiah  and  Micah 
direct  the  hopes  of  Israel  towards  a  noble  prince  who 
should  spring  from  the  family  of  the  famous  monarch. 
They  said  that  the  prince  would  be  anointed  by 
Yahweh,  that  he  would  rule  his  people  in  righteous- 
ness, and  that  the  spirit  of  Yahweh  should  rest  upon 
him.  He  was  to  come  out  of  Bethlehem,  that  is,  the 
house  of  David,  which  had  originally  belonged  to  a 
little  town  of  that  name  in  Judah. 

It  was  in  this  form  that  the  Messianic  Expectation 
became  most  widely  known,  especially  when,  in  later 
times,  the  Christians  found  in  it  a  foreshadowing  of 
Jesus  and  his  birth  at  Bethlehem.  But  we  need 
hardly  stop  to  prove  that  the  prophets  had  no  such 
application  as  this  in  their  thoughts.  For  the  inter- 
pretation which  was  subsequently  given  to  their  words, 
the  significance  which  was  attached  to  them,  or  the 
stories  which  were  tacked  on  to  them,  the  prophets 
themselves  of  course  are  not  responsible.  All  that 
we  have  to  do  at  present  is  to  consider  how  they  came 
to  fix  upon  a  king  of  the  house  of  David.  We  must 
recollect  that  to  the  minds  of  the  prophets  David  was 
the  ideal  of  a  true  theocratic  prince;  according  to 
their  views  his  reign  had  been  the  golden  age  in- the 
history  of  Israel.  In  his  days  the  nation  had  been 
great  and  prosperous ;  in  his  days  —  so  they  fancied  — 
Yahweh  had  been  served  in  a  proper  manner ;  and  if 
it  were  ever  again  so  in  Israel,  as  surely  it  must  be, — 
if  Israel  were  ever  great  again  and  faithful  to  its  god, 


150  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

then  would  times  like  the  times  of  David  return  once 
more,  and  a  prince  like  him  once  more  sit  upon  the 
throne.  Inasmuch  as  Yahweh  was  gracious  to  his 
people,  he  would  certainly  some  day  give  them  a  king 
like  David,  and  descended  from  his  house.  Of  course 
all  the  prophets  did  not  represent  things  in  just  the 
same  light.  These  expectations  were  modified  by  the 
idiosyncrasies  of  the  particular  prophet,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances by  which  he  was  surrounded.  Thus, 
about  a  century  after  Isaiah,  we  find  almost  the  same 
expectation  expressed  by  Habakkuk,  and  the  unknown 
writer  of  Zechariah,  xii.-xiv.  They  said  that  Yahweh 
would  judge  Israel,  and  Israel  should  repent  and  be 
blessed.  The  last-mentioned  prophet  also  expected 
the  restoration  of  the  house  of  David.  But  their  con- 
temporary, Jeremiah,  although  no  less  assured  than 
they  were  of  a  restoration  in  the  remote  future, 
expected  a  fearful  judgment  first.  Judah  must  fall 
into  the  hands  of  the  Chaldeans  and  their  king, 
Nebuchadrezzar.  The  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  and 
Judah  were  to  be  led  captive  to  Babylon,  and  to 
sojourn  there  seventy  years — a  round  number.  Then, 
and  only  then,  should  Babylon  fall,  and  the  captives 
return  from  all  parts  of  the  world  to  which  they  had 
been  scattered,  —  the  men  of  Ephraim  first,  and  then 
those  of  Judah.  All  were  then  to  be  converted,  and 
Yahweh  would  grant  them  a  season  of  much  blessing. 
He  would  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of 
Israel  and  with  the  house  of  Judah,  not  according  to 


The  Messianic  Expectation.  151 

the  old  covenant  which  he  had  made  with  their 
fathers,  in  the  day  that  he  took  them  by  the  hand  to 
bring  them  out  of  Egypt,  for  they  had  broken  the 
covenant  of  Yahweh,  though  he  was  a  lord  to  them. 
But  this  is  the  covenant  which  Yahweh  shall  make 
with  the  house  of  Israel  in  those  days:  he  will  put 
his  law  in  their  inward  parts  and  write  it  in  their 
hearts ;  he  will  be  their  god  and  they  shall  be  his 
people.  And  they  shall  teach  no  more  every  man  his 
neighbor  and  every  man  his  brother,  saying,  Know 
Yahweh,  —  for  they  shall  all  know  him  from  the  least 
of  them  unto  the  greatest  of  them ;  and  Yahweh  will 
forgive  their  iniquity  and  remember  their  sin  no  more. 
Then  shall  Yahweh  raise  up  a  righteous  branch  to 
David ;  he  shall  rule  as  king.  There  shall  be  peace 
under  a  line  of  princes,  shepherds  of  the  people  of 
that  ancient  house ;  there  shall  be  abundance  of  cattle 
and  sheep,  of  corn  and  wine;  and  unbroken  joy 
shall  dwell  in  Israel.  There  shall  no  longer  be  an 
ark,  and  it  shall  not  be  missed;  for  the  whole  of 
Jerusalem  shall  be  called  the  throne  of  Yahweh. 

In  the  second  Isaiah  we  meet  with  a  further  and 
most  important  modification  in  the  prophetic  expec- 
tation with  regard  to  Israel's  future.  He  sets  aside 
all  mention  of  a  prince  of  the  house  of  David  or  of 
a  personal  Messiah.  Times  were  altogether  changed, 
and  David's  line  had  sunk  too  low  for  him  to  cherish 
any  hopes  of  its  restoration.  Instead  of  the  ideal 


152  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

put  forward  by  the  older  prophets,  we  find  him 
expressing  the  expectation  that  Yahweh  would  glorify 
himself  in  his  servant.  In  speaking  of  "  the  servant 
of  Yahweh/'  the  prophet  does  not  mean  any  indi- 
vidual, but  the  religious  kernel  of  the  nation,  the 
prophets  themselves  in  the  first  place,  and,  in  addi- 
tion, all  who  are  faithful  to  Yahweh.  Yahweh  has 
chosen  this  servant  to  himself,  and  for  his  sake  he 
will  be  gracious  to  the  whole  of  Israel.  But  to  that 
end  the  servant  must  take  the  sins  of  his  people  upon 
himself ;  being  a  part  of  Israel,  he  must  bear  Israel's 
diseases,  be  wounded  for  Israel's  sins  and  bruised  for 
Israel's  iniquities.  Then,  and  not  till  then,  shall  the 
glory  of  old  be  restored,  and  Israel  have  dominion 
over  the  heathen.  And  even  these  shall  be  converted 
by  the  servant  of  Yahweh.  They  shall  be  witnesses 
of  his  patient  suffering,  they  shall  hearken  to  his 
preaching,  and  become  acquainted  with  Yahweh,  and 
call  upon  him  as  their  god.  Thus  shall  the  servant 
of  Yahweh  be  a  light  to  the  Gentiles  and  lead  them 
into  righteousness. 

Thus  culminated  the  Messianic  Expectation  of  the 
prophets.  In  the  second  Isaiah  it  reached  its  loftiest 
point,  and  showed  in  the  most  attractive  manner  its 
moral  and  religious  character.  It  burst  the  narrow 
bonds  of  the  sentiment  of  nationality  and  waxed 
more  broadly  human.  After  this  prophet  it  never 
appeared  in  the  same  form  again.  Circumstances 
changed  and  new  modes  of  feeling  arose  in  Israel. 


The  Sages.  153 

In  Haggai  and  Zechariah  (i.— viii.),  who  appeared  in 
Jerusalem  shortly  after  the  second  Isaiah,  and  in 
Malachi,  the  contemporary  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
we  find  no  more  such  high  and  enthusiastic  hopes. 
The  thing  is  easily  explained,  for  we  know  that  sad 
experience  and  bitter  disappointments  had  extin- 
guished enthusiasm,  and  with  its  disappearance  hope 
could  no  longer  maintain  so  high  a  pitch.  We  have 
nothing  but  continual  repetitions  of  lamentations 
over  the  times,  with  announcements  that  Yahweh 
will  surely  bring  judgment  to  pass,  and  promises  that 
after  that  a  better  day  shall  dawn.  In  Malachi  we 
find  the  further  idea  that  Yahweh  will  send  the 
prophet  Elijah  before  the  day  of  judgment  comes,  to 
give  Israel  a  last  chance  of  repenting.  Thus  was  the 
hope  kept  alive  indeed,  but  bereft  of  ardor,  until 
long  afterwards  it  acquired  renewed  force,  and  began 
to  show  itself  in  other  forms. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE   SAGES. 

~VT  rE  have  already  had  occasion*  to  mention  "the 
*  *     sages,"  and  made  acquaintance  with  Solomon 
as  the  first  of  the  line.     It  will  be  well  to  take  this 
*  See  page  93. 


154  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

opportunity  of  examining  them  and  their  work  with 
closer  and  more  special  attention  and  of  giving  a 
short  sketch  of  their  history  during  the  whole  period 
that  they  flourished  in  Israel. 

Originally  the  character  of  these  sages  was  not 
distinctly  religious.  They  were  men  who  excelled  in 
acuteness  of  observation,  and  put  their  conclusions 
into  short  and  pithy  sentences,  often  characterized  by 
genuine  wit.  They  by  no  means  confined  their 
attention  to  Israel,  but  kept  their  eyes  open  for  any- 
thing good  among  other  nations.  Like  Solomon, 
they  were  inclined  to  cosmopolitanism.  They  desired 
to  exhibit  and  to  instruct  their  contemporaries  in  what- 
ever was  human,  and  not  exclusively  what  was 
Israelitish.  At  first  their  wisdom,  which  was  called 
"chokmah,"  was  very  simple,  without  much  depth, 
and  of  a  purely  secular  character.  At  that  time  .the 
sages  stood  in  opposition  to  the  prophets,  in  so  far 
as  they  were  devoid  of  sympathy  with  their  efforts  to 
keep  Israel  from  all  contact  with  strange  peoples,  or 
with  their  notion  that  safety  was  only  to  be  found  in 
strict  and  exclusive  Yahwism ;  and  they  were  no  less 
removed  from  any  sympathy  with  the  insistance  of 
the  priests  on  the  temple-observances.  The  wisdom 
which  they  taught  was  at  first  the  wisdom  of  daily 
life  or  of  ordinary  common  sense.  It  was  neither 
high-flown  nor  enthusiastic,  and  on  that  very  account 
it  had  great  influence  with  the  people.  For  their 
proverbs,  and  riddles,  and  lessons  were  easy  to 


The  Sages.  155 

understand,  being  uttered  by  men  who  stood  in 
closer  relation  to  the  common  people,  and  were  nearer 
to  them  in  thought  and  spiritual  capacity  than  the 
priests  or  the  prophets. 

In  the  course  of  time,  however,  the  sages  began  to 
lay  more  stress  on  serving  Yahvveh,  and  applied  them- 
selves earnestly  to  the  great  problems  of  religion ;  and 
the  tone  of  their  utterances  underwent  a  correspond- 
ing change.  Those  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  were  written  by  sages,  namely,  Proverbs,  Job, 
and  Ecclesiastes,  afford  proof  of  this  gradual  modifi- 
cation. We  will  accordingly  examine  them  one  by 
one. 

The  Book  of  PROVERBS  is  not  the  work  of  a  single 
hand  or  of  a  single  age,  but  contains  eight  collections 
of  various  dimensions.  The  oldest  group  belongs  to 
the  eighth  century,  and  may,  perhaps,  embrace  a  few 
proverbs  to  be  ascribed  to  Solomon.  An  important 
section  belongs  to  the  seventh  century,  while  neither 
of  the  last  two  chapters  was  written  till  after  the 
captivity.  Besides  Solomon,  "sages"  generally  are 
mentioned  as  authors,  while  "the  men  of  Hezekiah," 
whoever  they  may  be,  appear  as  the  collectors  of  one 
group. 

The  book  deals  with  a  variety  of  topics.  Truth- 
fulness, faithfulness,  honor,  industry,  thrift,  temper- 
ance, chastity,  self-restraint,  mercy,  obedience  to 
parents  —  these,  one  and  all,  are  urged  upon  the 
reader.  It  is  all  put  into  the  shape  of  proverbs,  in 


156  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

short  and  pithy  saws.  The  form  of  expression  is 
rhythmical,  which  is  the  general  characteristic  of 
Hebrew  poetry.  The  proverbs  are  so  arranged  that 
both  members  of  the  verse  convey  the  same  idea, 
though  clad  in  different  words,  or  else  so  that  the 
second  part  contains  a  contrast  to  the  first.  Both 
these  forms  of  verse  are  called  "  parallelism."  Else- 
where, again,  the  two  sections  of  the  verse  express 
different  truths,  which  are  nevertheless  closely  con- 
nected with  one  another,  or  they  comprise  a  com- 
parison. 

Of  course  all  the  different  authors  do  not  speak 
from  the  same  point  of  view.  We  saw  just  now  how 
the  character  of  the  "Wisdom"  was  gradually  modi- 
fied ;  and  this  may  be  seen  clearly  enough  in  the 
different  collections  of  adages  which  make  up  this 
book.  In  the  oldest  parts,  which  belong  to  the 
eighth  century  before  Christ,  we  have  the  most  simple 
lessons  of  practical  wisdom,  with  nothing  very  lofty 
about  them,  but  yet,  even  then,  all  in  the  interests  of 
Yahwism.  Many  sages  had  then  forsaken  the  teach- 
ing of  Solomon,  and  exchanged  their  indifference  to 
religion  for  genuine  interest  and  respect.  And  this 
is  still  more  the  case  subsequently,  —  in  the  seventh 
century.  The  author  of  Proverbs  i.  y-ix.  lived  at  that 
time,  and  approached  so  closely  to  the  prophets  that 
he  often  speaks  quite  in  their  spirit.  We  are  indebted 
to  him  for  the  beautiful  saying  that  "the  fear  of 
Yahweh  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom."  This  is  his 


The  Sages.  157 

leading  idea.  Wisdom  must  be  in  harmony  with 
Yahwism.  He  holds  the  belief  in  God  and  his  holi- 
ness and  righteousness  as  firmly  as  the  prophets  them- 
selves. He  conceives  of  "Wisdom"  as  an  attribute 
of  Yahweh,  or  rather,  by  a  kind  of  personification,  as 
a  companion  of  Yahweh's  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world.  In  exalted  language,  she  gives  utterance  to 
pure  conceptions  of  religion  which  may  be  likened  to 
those  of  the  prophets.  The  writer  of  this  part  of 
Proverbs  reminds  one  above  all  of  the  Deuteronomist, 
and  the  similarity  extends  even  to  forms  of  expres- 
sion. And  this  shows  how  Wisdom  gradually  devel- 
oped in  Israel,  and  did  its  share  towards  increasing 
the  popularity  of  the  religion  of  Yahweh. 

The  Book  of  JOB  is  a  sublime  and  wonderfully 
beautiful  poem,  composed  by  a  contemporary  of 
Jeremiah,  who  probably  lived  in  the  south  of  Judah. 
He  tries  to  solve  the  riddles  of  God's  government  in 
connection  with  the  calamities  that  befall  the  pious. 
It  is  by  no  means  improbable  that  he  wrote  under 
the  stimulus  of  the  death  of  Josiah,  a  calamity  the 
magnitude  of  which  we  have  described  above,*  and 
which  was  such  a  mournful  and  insoluble  riddle  to  all 
the  faithful.  This  writer,  like  so  many  others,  had 
observed  the  apparent  inconsistency  between  Yah- 
weh's righteousness  and  the  adversities  of  his  faithful 
worshipers,  and  he  sets  himself  to  discover  the  recon- 

*See  page  127. 


153  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

ciliation  between  the  two.  He  dresses  up  his  argument 
in  the  story  of  the  pious  Job,  a  story  likely  enough 
not  without  some  historical  foundation.  At  first  the 
favorite  of  fortune,  rich  in  honors  and  blessings,  Job 
suddenly  meets  with  the  most  terrible  reverses,  and 
is  bereft  of  all  his  possessions  and  all  his  children. 
He  has  nothing  left.  Lonely,  and  stricken  with  a 
horrible  disease,  he  sits  down  upon  the  ground.  His 
wife  urges  him  with  scoffing  words  to  forsake  God, 
who  has  overwhelmed  him  with  such  calamities ;  but 
Job  retains  his  integrity :  Yahweh  had  given  and 
Yahweh  had  taken  away;  he  had  received  good  at 
his  hand,  and  should  he  not  receive  evil  also  ? 

Three  friends  come  to  visit  him,  and,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  popular  belief  of  their  day,  urge  him  to 
confess  his  sins ;  for  they  maintain  that  it  must  be  for 
his  sins  that  Yahweh,  the  Holy  One,  is  punishing  him. 
God  is  righteous,  and  therefore  a  man's  fortunes  must 
be  the  measure  of  his  piety.  If  any  one  is  unfortu- 
nate he  must  have  sinned,  though  it  be  years  ago, 
and  though  it  entirely  escaped  notice.  God  overtakes 
the  guilty ;  and  the  unfortunate  is  always  guilty.  Job's 
friends  continually  revert  to  this  fundamental  con- 
ception. But  Job  himself  declares  his  innocence  in 
the-  most  emphatic  language.  He  can  recall  no  sin 
that  he  has  committed.  His  conscience  acquits  him. 
His  misfortunes  cannot  possibly  be  the  penalty  or 
punishment  of  any  transgression.  He  bursts  into 
bitter  and  vehement  complaints  over  his  misery  and 


The  Sages.  159 

the  hardships  of  God's  dealings  with  him;  and  he 
always  has  an  answer  ready  for  the  assertions  of  his 
friends.  Nevertheless,  he  himself  cannot  find  the 
solution  of  the  calamities  that  befall  him  ;  the  method 
of  God's  government  remains  a  riddle  to  him. 

At  last  Yahweh  himself  is  introduced  to  reply 
to  Job's  complaints.  But  even  Yahweh  does  not 
explain  his  dealings;  he  only  adduces  his  divine 
power  and  wisdom  to  awe  Job  into  silence.  So 
insignificant  and  humble  a  being  as  man  cannot 
fathom  the  counsels  of  God;  but  instead  of  with- 
standing him,  he  ought  to  yield  him  a  complete  sub- 
mission. 

Such,  then,  is  the  conclusion  to  which  the  writer 
comes.  The  relation  between  virtue  and  happiness 
neither  is  nor  can  be  understood ;  it  is  in  its  very 
nature  incomprehensible.  God  is  righteous,  and 
therefore  pious  men  must  prosper  —  of  this  the  writer 
is  firmly  persuaded;  again,  pious  men  are  often 
unfortunate  —  of  this  experience  gives  unquestionable 
proof;  these  two  assertions  contradict  each  other, 
and  yet  they  must  both  be  true.  To  extricate  himself 
from  the  dilemma,  our  author  makes  his  hero  quite 
prosperous  again  at  the  end:  the  prosperity  which 
Job  found  in  his  latter  days  far  surpassed  his  former 
prosperity.  In  this  the  poet  contradicts  himself;  but 
he  cannot  help  it,  because  he  does  not  know  where 
to  find  the  solution  of  the  mystery. 


160  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

In  this  sketch  of  the  sages  of  Israel  and  their 
writings  we  must,  for  the  sake  of  completeness,  say 
something  about  ECCLESIASTES,  although  this  book 
belongs  to  a  much  later  period,  and  was  written 
under  entirely  different  circumstances  to  those  which 
we  have  hitherto  been  contemplating.  It  dates  from 
tne  end  of  the  third  century  before  Christ,  and  is  the 
work  of  an  unknown  author,  who  writes  in  the  name 
of  Solomon,  the  son  of  David,  king  in  Jerusalem. 
As  to  this  last  point,  writing  in  the  name  of  some 
celebrated  character  of  antiquity  is  not,  according  to 
our  notions,  a  moral  proceeding.  But  in  those  days 
it  was  a  pretty  general  practice,  and  was  thought  to 
be  justified  by  the  hope  of  exercising  a  wider  influence. 
Probably  this  assumption  of  the  name  of  Solomon 
accounts  for  Ecclesiastes  having  been  admitted  by 
the  scribes  of  Jerusalem  into  the  ranks  of  Holy 
Scripture.  There  was  a  great  deal  in  it  that  was  at 
variance  with  their  opinions,  but  their  respect  for  the 
name  of  Israel's  royal  sage  forbade  them  to  leave 
this  book  out. 

The  writer  gave  Solomon  the  title  of  "  Preacher," 
from  which  the  book  itself  derives  the  name  of 
"Koheleth,"  rendered  by  the  Greek  word,  "Eccle- 
siastes," which,  like  the  original,  signifies  one  who 
preaches.  The  author  lived  at  a  time  when  Israel's 
fortunes  were  very  low.  The  splendor  of  the  people 
of  Israel  had  faded  away,  and  their  might  was  broken. 
They  were  sighing  under  the  yoke  of  the  Greeks. 


The  Sages.  161 

Anarchy  and  impious  violence  everywhere  prevailed. 
All  this  the  Preacher  beholds ;  and  he  narrowly  and 
keenly  observes  the  circumstances  of  the  time. 
Apparently  he  is  a  man  of  distinction  among,  his 
people,  and  his  heart  can  find  no  satisfaction  in  what 
constitutes  the  delight  of  the  scribes.  He  therefore 
finds  no  comfort  in  his  pain,  and  knows  no  solution 
to  the  riddles  of  life.  On  the  one  hand,  he  holds 
fast  by  the  belief  in  God  and  his  righteousness. 
This  belief  is  so  deeply  rooted  in  Israel,  that  not 
even  he  can  doubt  it.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  he 
beholds  the  frightful  misery  and  all  the  evil  that 
happens  under  the  sun,  and  he  can  neither  explain  it 
nor  reconcile  it  with  the  government  of  God.  Less 
bigoted  than  the  strictly  orthodox  Jews  —  especially 
the  scribes  —  he  was  not  interested  exclusively  in 
things  purely  Israelitish.  But  even  his  larger  range 
of  vision  yielded  him  no  satisfaction.  He  tried  to 
find  peace  in  pleasure,  but  it  palled  upon  him;  he 
turned  to  wisdom  in  search  of  what  he  wanted,  but  it 
was  in  vain ;  there  is  no  remembrance  of  the  wise 
more  than  of  the  fool.  Hence  his  saying  that  all  is 
vanity  on  the  earth.  He  has  no  choice  but  to  abide 
in  this  belief,  but  it  is  no  happy  faith ;  he  acquiesces 
in  evil  out  of  despair.  He  is  a  thorough-going 
pessimist;  and  so  he  comes  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  best  advice  he  can  give  men  is,  not  to  weary 
themselves,  but  just  to  enjoy  whatever  God  lets  them 
enjoy.  According  to  him,  we  ought  to  fear  God,  but 


1 62  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

not  out  of  devotion  or  because  we  love  him ;  simply 
because  he  is  a  God  of  righteousness,  who  severely 
punishes  the  transgression  of  his  commands.  More- 
over, he  has  none  of  that  consciousness  of  the  near 
presence  of  God  which  we  meet  with  in  the  prophets 
and  several  of  the  psalmists,  and  which  gives  us  so 
high  an  idea  of  their  piety  and  their  sincere  religious 
feeling.  To  his  thinking,  God  is  far  away  in  heaven, 
and  so  he  tells  us  not  to  be  rash  before  God,  and  not 
to  be  hasty  to  utter  anything  before  him.  His  advice 
comes  pretty  much  to  this :  fatigue  yourself  as  little 
as  possible  with  doing  God's  commandments  ;  you 
cannot  neglect  them  altogether,  because  God  would 
punish  you  if  you  did ;  but  do  not  put  yourselves  to 
inconvenience  by  troubling  too  much  about  them. 
And  his  theory  of  morals  is  quite  in  harmony  with 
this  view.  His  principle  is  to  avoid  all  extremes ; 
we  must  not  be  too  righteous  or  too  wise,  but  neither 
must  we  be  too  wicked,  for  if  we  are  either  one  or 
the  other,  we  shall  bring  destruction  on  our  heads. 

Thus  the  Preacher's  point  of  view  is  neither  very 
religious  nor  highly  moral.  He  stands  below  a  great 
many  of  his  predecessors  and  contemporaries.  How- 
ever, we  must  not  forget  that  he  lived  in  the  midst  of 
a  most  melancholy  state  of  things,  and  that  the  efforts 
of  the  scribes  could  not  possibly  satisfy  him.  The 
Law  and  the  temple  filled  others  with  enthusiasm  ; 
but  they  had  no  power  to  touch  him.  His  range  of 
vision  was  wider  than  that  of  others,  but  his  needs 
were  greater  too. 


The  Sages.  163 

Nor  must  we  forget  to  mention  his  disbelief  in 
the  personal  immortality  of  man.  The  belief  in  it 
existed  in  his  day,  and  he  was  well  acquainted  with 
it;  but  he  denies  it  and  argues  against  it.  Man  dies 
like  the  brutes,  and  he  is  no  better  than  they.  Hence 
his  gloom  ;  for  him  there  was  no  hope  in  the  future, 
no  comfort  in  the  present,  no  solution  of  the  riddles 
of  life.  Truly,  false  as  is  his  point  of  view,  his  gloom 
is  no  longer  a  puzzle  to  us. 

Very  shortly  after  the  Preacher,  Jesus,  the  son  of 
Sirach,  wrote  his  famous  Proverbs,  known  as  Eccle- 
siasticus.  This  book  did  not  obtain  a  place  in  the 
Old  Testament,  but  it  has  been  preserved  for  us  in  a 
Greek  translation.  This  Jesus  is  also  a  sage,  but  in 
a  better  sense  than  the  Preacher.  He  is  strongly 
attached  to  the  Law,  the  temple,  the  priests,  and  the 
services  of  religion.  He  stands  on  the  foundations 
of  the  ancient  Israelitish  faith,  and  makes  the  ideas 
of  the  prophets  his  starting-point.  On  these  principles 
he  founds  his  theory  of  morals,  which  is  far  loftier 
than  that  of  the  Preacher. 

These  writers  are  the  last  of  the  sages  of  Israel. 
If  writers  of  this  class  do  not  occupy  so  prominent  a 
place  in  the  history  of  the  religious  progress  of  this 
people  as  the  prophets,  the  scribes,  and  the  priests, 
yet,  by  proclaiming  their  moral  ideas,  they  did  their 
part  in  bringing  the  application  of  the  principles  of 
the  prophets  home  to  their  countrymen, 


164  The  Religion  of  Israel. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE   BABYLONISH    CAPTIVITY. 

"1 T  7E  must  now  once  more  take  up  the  thread  of 
*  *  our  story,  and  turn  our  attention  to  the  con- 
dition of  the  Israelites  after  Nebuchadrezzar  had  laid 
waste  Jerusalem  and  the  temple.  Those  who  were 
left  in  Judah  were  deeply  conscious  of  the  wretched- 
ness of  their  lot,  and  the  description  of  it  preserved 
for  us  in  the  Book  of  Lamentations  abundantly  testi- 
fies how  dire  was  their  misery.  Obadiah,  and  possibly 
one  other  prophet  as  well,  still  prophesied  among 
them ;  and  from  Ezekiel  xxxiii.  23-29  we  see  that 
they  still  cherished  a  feeble  hope  that  Israel's  resto- 
ration would  come  from  themselves.  But  this  hope 
proved  altogether  vain;  their  power  was  shattered 
once  for  all. 

We  have  but  little  information  with  jespect  to  the 
condition  of  the  captives.  We  know  that  one  party — 
the  first  who  were  carried  away  —  settled  on  the  river 
Chebar,  while  it  is  said  that  the  second  and  third 
detachments  were  taken  to  Babylon  —  a  term  which 
may  be  used  for  the  surrounding  country  as  well  as 
for  the  city  itself.  How  they  lived  there  we  do  not 
know.  Probably  some  of  them,  at  any  rate,  continued 


The  Babylonish  Captivity.  165 

to  lead  the  life  of  husbandmen,  or  practised  some 
handicraft,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  great 
many  soon  began  to  apply  themselves  to  trade,  to 
which  circumstances  naturally  inclined  them.  It  is 
probable,  too,  that  the  majority  of  them,  at  any  rate, 
rose  to  a  certain  degree  of  prosperity  in  the  course  of 
time.  So  that  their  condition  was,  at  the  worst,  per- 
fectly tolerable. 

Those  mutual  differences  in  religious  opinions  and 
ideas  which  we  have  seen  among  them  from  of  old 
still  maintained  themselves.  The  worship  of  strange 
gods  still  flourished  to  such  a  degree  that  all  the  zeal 
of  Ezekiel  was  necessary  to  contend  against  it.  Then, 
again,  among  the  faithful  servants  of  Yahweh  there 
were  those  who  thought  that  the  sojourn  in  Babylon 
would  not  be  for  long  —  an  opinion  which  Jeremiah 
vehemently  opposed  in  a  letter  which  has  been  pre- 
served. On  the  other  hand,  however,  there  was  an 
increase  of  those  who  agreed  with  that  prophet  in 
hoping  for  a  restoration  at  some  future  time,  but,  like 
him,  did  not  expect  it  to  take  place  for  a  great  many 
years,  and,  looking  at  things  in  much  the  same  way 
as  the  writer  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  appealed 
to  the  holiness  of  Yahweh  as  an  argument  that  matters 
could  never  mend  unless  Israel  were  converted.  They 
appealed  to  the  history  of  their  people  to  show  that 
the  only  hope  of  salvation  for  Israel  lay  in  unswerving 
attachment  to  Yahweh.  Most  likely  the  Books  of 
Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  were  written  at  this  time, 


1 66  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

or  a  little  later.  Perhaps  they  are  by  the  author  of 
Deuteronomy,  and,  at  any  rate,  they  are  just  what  he 
might  have  written. 

Ezekiel  takes  the  most  distinguished  place  among 
the  prophets  who  appeared  in  the  first  period  of  the 
captivity.  He  was  a  priest  who  had  been  transported 
with  the  earliest  colony,  as  far  back  as  the  year  597 
before  Christ.  He  was  utterly  overwhelmed  by  the 
tragic  lot  that  had  overtaken  his  countrymen,  and 
was  profoundly  impressed  with  the  righteousness  of 
that  God  who  had  so  heavily  punished  the  unfaithful. 
This  gave  his  prophecies  a  sombre  and  melancholy 
tone.  Yet  he  was  as  confident  as  the  rest  of  the  ulti- 
mate restoration  of  Israel,  and  threw  himself  into  the 
contemplation  of  the  glorious  future  with  manifest 
delight,  describing  it  at  great  length.  It  is  important 
to  observe  that  we  find  in  him  the  first  traces  of  those 
sacerdotal  precepts  in  reference  to  the  temple  and 
the  worship  there,  which  were  subsequently  so  fully 
developed  in  the  Law. 

The  prophets  Ahab,  Zedekiah,  and  Shemaiah  belong 
to  the  same  period.  They  predicted  a  speedy  restora- 
tion, and  found  plenty  ready  to  listen  to  them.  It 
was  against  them  that  Jeremiah  directed  his  zeal. 
The  event  proved  their  expectations  fallacious,  and 
their  influence  soon  passed  away. 

It  was  not  till  after  the  death  of  Nebuchadrezzar 
and  his  son,  Evil-Merodach,  that  circumstances  once 
more  stirred  up  hopes  of  deliverance  among  the 


The  Babylonish  Captivity.  167 

Israelites.  Rumors  then  began  to  reach  them  of  the 
conquests  of  Cyrus,  the  Persian  king,  and  their  inter- 
est was  naturally  aroused  to  the  utmost.  This  appears 
from  what  the  prophets  of  the  time  have  left  us.  We 
do  not  know  the  names  of  any  of  them,  although 
their  utterances  have  been  incorporated  in  the  Books 
of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah.  Thus  Isaiah  xiii.  i-xiv.  23 ; 
xxi.  i-io;  xxiv.-xxvii. ;  xxxiv.  xxxv. ;  and  xl.-lxvi., 
as  well  as  Jeremiah  1.  and  li.,  belong  to  this  last  part 
of  the  captivity,  and  were  subsequently  gathered  up 
into  the  books  called  after  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah.  They 
all  treat  of  the  liberation  of  Israel,  which  is  to  ensue 
on  the  fall  of  Babylon.  Isaiah  xl.-lxvi.  is  especially 
important  in  this  connection.  We  have  already  made 
some  acquaintance  with  the  writer*  who,  because  we 
do  not  know  his  real  name,  is  generally  called  "the 
second  Isaiah."  He  was  profoundly  impressed  with 
the  power  of  Yahweh ;  for  he  was  persuaded  that  the 
fortunes  of  foreign  nations  —  the  aggrandizement  of 
Persia  and  the  approaching  fall  of  Babylon — were 
ordained  by  God  solely  with  a  view  to  enable  Israel 
to  return  to  the  fatherland.  Every  circumstance  is 
arranged  by  God  with  an  eye  to  this  result.  Thus 
the  prophet  perceives  that  his  God  is  the  mighty 
ruler  of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and  that  there  are 
no  other  Gods  beside  that  One.  No  one  else  so 
vigorously  exposes  the  vanity  of  idols,  and  his  descrip- 
tions of  Yahweh's  glory  and  majesty  are  strikingly 
*See  page  150. 


1 68  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

beautiful  and  sublime.  Most  touching  are  the  words 
of  consolation  with  which  he  tries  to  encourage  his 
countrymen,  and  strong  is  his  faith  in  the  future  of 
Israel. 

The  events  of  the  years  immediately  ensuing  set 
the  seal  upon  his  expectations.  In  the  year  538 
before  Christ  the  city  of  Babylon  was  taken  by  Cyrus, 
and  the  kingdom  of  the  Chaldeans  came  to  an  end. 
We  know  nothing  about  the  attitude  of  the  Israelites 
while  all  this  was  going  on.  It  is  possible  that  they 
found  means  of  helping  Cyrus,  and  facilitating  his 
capture  of  the  city.  But  however  that  may  be,  one 
thing  is  certain :  Cyrus  was  remarkably  gracious  to 
them.  His  attention  must  have  been  called  to  them 
very  soon,  and  perhaps  he  was  acquainted  with  the 
expectations  which  their  prophets  had  held  out;  or 
he  may  have  been  struck  with  the  similarity  of  their 
religion  with  his  own.  At  any  rate,  it  seemed  to 
him  desirable  to  let  them  return  to  their  country, 
that,  bound  to  him,  as  they  would  be,  by  every  con- 
sideration of  honor  and  gratitude,  they  might  consti- 
tute a  strong  section  of  his  immense  kingdom  out 
there  in  the  far  west.  So  he  very  soon  gave  the  cap- 
tives leave  to  go  back  to  Judah,  and  to  restore  the 
temple. 

They  did  not,  however,  all  of  them  avail  them- 
selves of  the  permission.  According  to  the  writer  of 
the  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  there  were  about 


The  Babylonish  Captivity.  169 

42,000  of  them  that  did  so;  but  probably  the  heads 
of  families  only  are  intended,  so  that  the  women  and 
children  must  be  added.  But  this  computation  is 
clearly  too  high  if  we  remember  the  number  that 
were  carried  away;  and  there  is,  no  doubt,  some 
mistake  here  which  we  cannot  now  hope  to  get  to  the 
bottom  of.  But  there  is  no  question  that  the  number 
of  those  who  returned  was  very  considerable.  They 
set  out  and  arrived  at  their  journey's  end  under  the 
leadership  of  Zerubbabel,  a  man  of  the  house  of 
David,  and  of  Joshua,  the  grandson  of  the  last  high 
priest. 

But  a  great  many  Israelites  stayed  behind  in  Baby- 
lon, which  shows  clearly  enough  that  they  were  not 
so  very  miserable  there.  They  kept  up  a  constant 
and  lively  intercourse  with  their  brethren  in  Judah, 
and  at  a  later  time  many  more  of  the  exiles  went 
back  to  their  fatherland,  as  we  shall  shortly  see.  We 
shall  perceive,  at  the  same  time,  how  powerful  was 
the  influence  of  the  exiles  on  the  Israelites  in  Pales- 
tine ;  indeed,  it  was  they  that  gave  its  special  character 
to  the  religious  life  of  the  latter  in  its  subsequent 
development. 

That  this  influence  of  theirs  continued  for  centu- 
ries, is  shown  by  the  Book  of  Esther.  The  author 
lived  in  the  third  century  before  Christ,  and  his  object 
in  writing  the  book  was  to  promote  the  observance 
in  Palestine  of  a  Persian  festival,  known  as  the  Feast 


170  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

of  Purim,  which  had  already  been  introduced  among 
the  Jews  abroad.  With  this  view,  he  relates  an 
entirely  fictitious  story  about  a  marvellous  deliverance 
of  the  Jews  in  the  reign  of  Ahasuerus  or  Xerxes  the 
First.  He  tells  how  this  king  married  a  Jewess 
named  Esther.  His  chief  minister,  Haman,  bore  a 
grudge  against  Esther's  uncle,  Mordecai,  and  deter- 
mined to  destroy  all  the  Jews  by  way  of  punishing 
him.  He  cast  lots  (Purim)  to  decide  the  day  for 
carrying  out  this  project.  But  fortunately  his  plans 
were  frustrated  by  Mordecai  and  Esther ;  Haman 
was  disgraced  and  put  to  death ;  and  the  king  gave 
the  Jews  leave  to  fall  upon  their  enemies,  and  kill  as 
many  of  them  as  they  could.  This  they  did ;  and  in 
memory  of  their  deliverance  they  made  the  day  on 
which  the  lot  had  fallen,  and  the  ensuing  day,  an 
occasion  of  annual  thanksgiving,  under  the  title  of 
the  Feast  of  Purim. 

We  said  just  now  that  this  story  was  entirely 
fictitious.  It  is  true,  however,  that  the  festival  in 
question  was  of  Persian  origin,  and  that  the  Jews  in 
Persia  gradually  took  to  observing  it.  The  author  of 
the  Book  of  Esther  wanted  to  see  it  introduced  into 
Palestine.  And  his  wish  was  fulfilled.  As  early  as 
the  second  century  before  Christ  the  feast  was  in 
general  use,  showing  that  the  Jews  did  not  yet  feel 
any  difficulty  in  adopting  new  elements  into  their 
ritual,  and  that  there  was  still  much  intercourse 
between  the  Jews  in  Palestine  and  those  who  were 


The  Babylonish  Captivity.  171 

abroad.  For  the  rest,  the  writer  was  a  narrow-minded 
man,  full  of  national  prejudice.  But  he  does  not  at 
all  put  the  glory  of  Israel  in  its  religion,  and  never 
once  mentions  the  name  of  God  in  the  whole  course 
of  his  book. 

This  is  the  place  to  speak  of  the  influence  of  the 
Persian  religion  on  that  of  Israel.  There  is  nothing 
to  be  surprised  at  in  the  existence  of  such  an  influence, 
or  even  in  its  being  in  some  directions  very  powerful 
indeed.  Those  Israelites  who  had  stayed  behind  in 
Babylon  were  in  perpetual  contact  with  the  Persians 
there ;  indeed,  many  of  them  moved  into  Persia  and 
Media,  while  the  hearty  good-will  that  subsisted 
between  the  two  peoples  was  hardly  ever  disturbed. 
Moreover,  there  were  several  points  of  agreement 
between  their  respective  religious  ideas.  The  Per- 
sians were  just  as  much  opposed  to  images  of  the 
deity  as  the  Israelites ;  their  Ormuzd  was  revered, 
like  Yahweh,  for  his  holiness,  and  was  also  looked 
upon  as  the  only  god.  They  had  almost  exactly  the 
same  regulations  about  clean  and  unclean,  and  their 
myths  concerning  the  creation  of  the  first  human 
beings  agreed  together,  even  in  some  of  their  details. 

Many  persons  have  been  so  struck  with  all  this, 
that  they  have  supposed  that  the  whole  history  of  the 
Jewish  religion  subsequently  to  the  captivity  might 
be  explained  by  reference  to  Persian  influence.  This, 
however,  is  an  exaggerated  view.  The  growth  of  the 


172  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

Jewish  religion  had  its  roots  in  the  Jews  themselves. 
Their  religious  feeling  was  of  sufficient  character  and 
force  to  determine  the  lines  of  its  own  development, 
and  all  that  the  facts  warrant  us  in  saying  is  that 
their  opinions  and  ideas  were  more  or  less  modified 
by  the  influence  of  the  Persians.  Let  us  now  go  a 
little  further  into  the  matter. 

And,  first  of  all,  we  have  to  deal  with  the  doctrine 
of  angels.  The  belief  in  these  beings  was  held  by 
the  Israelites  much  further  back,  and  we  often  hear 
of  angels,  especially  of  "the  angel  of  Yahweh."  But 
the  older  prophets  did  not  feel  any  need  of  angels  as 
a  means  of  communication  between  Yahweh  and 
mankind.  Yahweh  himself  addressed  men  personally, 
without  any  go-between,  and  concealed  none  of  his 
counsels  from  his  servants ;  but  this  mode  of  inter- 
course gradually  declined.  >Yahweh,  in  his  holiness, 
began  to  be  further  removed  from  human  beings,  and 
no  longer  conversed  with  them  himself,  but  sent  his 
angels.  These  became  the  indispensable  messengers 
for  the  proclamation  of  his  will.  In  this  character 
they  play  a  conspicuous  part  in  the  prophecies  of 
Ezekiel ;  and  Zechariah  distinguishes  himself  by  the 
emphasis  with  which  he  insists  on  the  activity  of 
angels  as  servants  before  the  throne  of  Yahweh.  It 
is  in  this  last  prophet  that  we  find  the  first  distinct 
traces  of  Persian  influence;  in  his  representations 
and  descriptions  of  angels  he  ascribes  attributes  to 
them  which  he  has  borrowed  from  the  Persian  Amshas- 


The  Babylonish  Captivity.  173 

pands.  By  and  by  appears  the  belief  in  nations  or 
individuals  having  guardian  angels;  in  Daniel  they 
have  definite  names ;  and  at  last  there  comes  to  be  a 
universal  belief,  just  as  there  was  in  Persia,  in  an 
incalculable  host  of  heavenly  spirits  or  angels,  all  of 
whom  have  their  own  special  ranks  and  characters 
and  spheres  of  action. 

In  the  second  place,  we  can  trace  the  influence  of 
Persia  in  the  conceptions  which  the  Jews  entertained 
of  evil  spirits.  They  already  believed  in  a  "  Satan," 
that  is  to  say,  an  accuser.  In  the  Book  of  Job  he 
takes  his  place  in  the  council  of  heaven  along  with  the 
angels ;  he  is  just  as  much  a  servant  of  Yahweh  as  the 
rest,  and  his  office  is  to  apportion  calamity  and  sick- 
ness to  men  according  to  Yahweh's  supreme  will.  In 
the  same  way  the  Israelites  had  formerly  explained 
evil,  disaster,  and  sin  as  proceeding  from  the  will  of 
Yahweh.  It  was  Yahweh  who  incited  David  to  take 
a  census  of  the  people,  though  the  writer  of  2  Samuel 
xxiv.  i,  regarded  it  as  a  grave  sin.  Amos  asks 
whether  there  can  be  any  evil  in  a  city  which  Yahweh 
does  not  cause  (chapter  iii.,  v.  6);  and  the  second 
Isaiah  tells  us  (chapter  xlv.,  v.  7)  that  Yahweh  makes 
peace  and  creates  evil.  But  these  ideas  were  .com- 
pletely transformed.  Satan  was  reconstructed  on  the 
model  of  the  Ahriman  of  the  Persians,  the  creator  of 
evil,  and  thenceforth  he  stood  in  opposition  to  Yah- 
weh, as  the  wicked  spirit  beyond  all  others,  and  all 
evil  was  his  handiwork.  Accordingly,  the  author  of 


1 74  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

i  Chronicles  xxi.  i,  alters  the  story  told  in  the  second 
Book  of  Samuel,  to  which  we  alluded  just  now,  and 
makes  Satan,  instead  of  Yahweh,  incite  David  to 
take  a  census  of  his  people.  In  the  same  manner, 
the  Israelites  now  began  to  believe  in  an  army  of 
wicked  spirits  too,  as  we  have  them  in  the  new  Testa- 
ment, where  they  are  called  devils  or  demons.  A 
great  deal  of  power  was  ascribed  to  these  demons. 
It  must  not  be  understood,  however,  that  monotheism 
was  denied.  The  Jews  still  maintained  it  practically, 
just  as  the  Persians  did,  although  they  were  logically 
involved  in  dualism,  or  the  belief  in  two  ultimate 
powers. 

The  Jewish  belief  about  immortality,  too,  felt  the 
influence  of  the  Persians,  though  not  very  profoundly. 
In  its  main  outline  it  grew  naturally  and  spontane- 
ously out  of  the  thought  and  feeling  of  the  Israelites 
themselves.  Yahweh  was  regarded  as  lord  of  life 
and  death.  His  prophets,  Elijah  and  Elisha,  waked 
the  dead.  Thus  Yahweh  had  power  to  restore  life 
to  whom  he  would.  And  in  later  times,  when  the 
relation  between  Yahweh  and  those  who  believed  in 
him  had  come  to  be  looked  upon  more  as  something 
personal,  the  belief  in  the  personal  immortality,  not, 
indeed,  of  all  men,  but  of  the  Israelites,  was  a  very 
natural  consequence.  In  the  days  of  the  Preacher  it 
was  held  by  some,  though  he  himself  combats  it ;  and 
the  writer  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  about  sixty  years 
later,  supposes  it  to  be  more  generally  accepted. 


Ezra  and  his  Times.  175 

The  Persians  entertained  the  belief  from  remote 
antiquity,  and  that,  too,  in  the  definite  form  of  a 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  that  is  to  say,  a  restoration 
of  man  to  life  after  death ;  and  it  is  highly  probable 
that  the  Jews  were  indebted  to  them  for  that  concep- 
tion, or,  at  any  rate,  that  they  were  influenced  by  them 
in  adopting  it. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

EZRA    AND     HIS    TIMES. 

~\\  7"E  must  now  return  to  the  Israelites  who  had 
gone  back  from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem.  They 
are  usually  called  "Jews,"  inasmuch  as  all  of  them, 
except  the  Levites,  were  descendants  of  the  old 
inhabitants  of  the  former  kingdom  of  Judah,  the  tribes 
of  Judah  and  Benjamin.  Although  they  considered 
themselves  the  true  representatives  of  the  whole 
Israelitish  people,  there  were  no  members  of  the 
other  ten  tribes  amongst  them. 

Great  religious  changes  soon  took  place  among 
those  who  had  returned.  It  was  with  high  hopes  and 
sacred  enthusiasm  that  they  had  undertaken  and 
accomplished  the  journey  to  Jerusalem,  in  spite  of 
the  inevitable  difficulties  and  hardships  which  awaited 
them.  Shortly  after  their  arrival  they  had  set  up  an 


The  Religion  of  Israel. 

altar  and  offered  sacrifice  upon  it,  and  this  practice 
they  continued  regularly  from  that  time  forwards. 
At  the  same  time  they  celebrated  the  Feast  of  Tab- 
ernacles. Nor  did  they  lose  any  time  in  beginning 
to  build  the  temple,  amid  the  joyful  shouts  of  the 
people ;  though  the  older  priests  and  Levites,  who 
had  seen  the  temple  of  Solomon,  could  not  hold  back 
their  tears  when  they  thought  of  the  glory  of  that  first 
house  of  Yahweh. 

But  this  enthusiasm  was  not  long-lived.  Its  first 
interruption  was  due  to  the  Samaritans,  who  dwelt 
where  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  had  once  been. 
These  people  wanted  to  help  in  the  building  of  the 
temple.  But  their  application  was  refused  on  the 
ostensible  ground  that  it  was  only  to  the  returned 
exiles  that  Cyrus  had  given  permission  to  take  part 
in  the  work,  but  really  because  it  was  felt  that  the 
Samaritans  could  not  be  acknowledged  as  Israelites. 
For  they  were  in  large  part  descended  from  the 
foreigners  whom  the  Assyrians  had  introduced  into 
Samaria  after  its  devastation.  At  first  these  colonists 
had  worshiped  their  own  gods;  but,  not  long  after 
their  arrival  in  their  new  home,  they  began  to  worship 
Yahweh  too,  as  the  god  of  the  country,  in  order  that 
by  his  help  they  might  be  delivered  from  the  ravages 
of  the  wild  beasts  which  overran  the  land.  But  they 
did  not  yet  consider  themselves  to  be  Israelites;  and 
it  was  on  this  score  that  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua  held 
them  at  a  distance.  This  refusal  made  them  very 


Ezra  and  his  Times.  177 

sore,  and  kindled  the  first  spark  of  that  inextinguish- 
able hatred  which  afterwards  subsisted  between  them 
and  the  Israelites.  But  they  continued  to  worship 
Yahweh,  and  by  and  by  they  even  began  to  consider 
themselves  genuine  Israelites.  In  the  course  of 
time,  too,  they  built  a  temple  to  Yahweh  on  Mount 
Gerizim,  and  adopted  from  the  Jews  the  Pentateuch 
and  the  Book  of  Joshua,  the  latter  of  which  contained 
the  history  of  Ephraim's  great  hero. 

After  being  thus  rebuffed,  they  determined  upon 
revenge.  They  laid  accusations  against  the  Israelites 
before  Cyrus,  probably  alleging  that  they  were 
attempting  to  make  themselves  independent.  The 
upshot  was  that  the  permission  to  rebuild  the  temple 
was  withdrawn,  so  that  the  work  had  to  be  discon- 
tinued. The  Israelites  felt  this  to  be  a  heavy  blow, 
disappointing  them  in  their  dearest  hopes.  How 
utterly  different  was  their  position  from  what  they 
had  hoped  !  Where  were  now  the  glorious  predictions 
of  Ezekiel  and  the  second  Isaiah,  who,  with  so  much 
fire,  had  foretold  a  good  time  coming  and  declared  so 
positively  that  Yahweh  would  return  to  his  people  ? 
Their  lot  was,  if  possible,  sadder  than  of  old.  Their 
hope  had  vanished,  and  so  their  strength  was  broken 
and  their  courage  oozed  away. 

Happily,  after  the  lapse  of  a  few  years,  men  appeared 

who  knew  how  to  inspire  a  worthier  mood.     These 

were  the  prophets   Haggai  and  Zechariah   (i.-viii.). 

They  admonished  and  rebuked  the  people,  but  at  the 

23 


178  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

same  time  uttered  new  and  glorious  promises,  which 
kindled  once  again  their  confidence  in  the  god  of 
their  fathers.  Under  their  inspiration  the  people 
once  more  put  their  shoulders  to  the  wheel,  and  the} 
succeeded  in  obtaining  the  permission  of  Darius,  the 
king  of  Persia,  to  go  on  with  their  task.  From  that 
moment  the  Israelites  met  with  no  further  disap- 
pointment, and  in  the  year  516  before  Christ  the 
temple  was  finished  and  solemnly  consecrated. 

We  have  no  record  of  the  period  between  the 
restoration  of  the  temple  and  the  arrival  of  Ezra. 
All  that  we  can  make  out  about  the  state  of  popular 
religion  during  this  time,  from  516  to  458  before 
Christ,  is  from  what  Ezra  tells  us  of  the  condition  of 
affairs  on  his  arrival  at  Jerusalem.  From  this  it 
appears  that  universal  discouragement  and  feebleness 
prevailed.  Indeed,  there  was  some  danger  that  the 
religion  of  the  Jews  might  be  merged  in  that  of  the 
surrounding  peoples.  For  there  was  much  toleration, 
arising  from  indifference,  as  was  shown,  among  other 
ways,  by  the  numerous  marriages,  even  on  the  part 
of  priests  and  Levites,  with  foreign  women.  Thus  it 
was  no  wonder  that  the  interest  in  Yahwism  declined, 
and  the  door  was  opened  to  foreign  elements.  And 
when  we  reflect  that,  though  the  writings  of  the 
prophets  existed,  they  had  not  yet  been  collected, 
and  that  the  Law,  properly  so  called,  was  not  yet 
written,  while  what  there  was  of  it  had  not  yet 


Ezra  and  his  Times.  179 

acquired  any  binding  force,  so  that  religion  had  not 
yet  attained  any  definite,  legal  form  in  the  popular 
consciousness,  we  cannot  but  allow  that  it  was 
a  dangerous  state  of  things.  All  this  was  very 
disappointing  to  earnest  men,  and  left  them  powerless, 
even  if  they  had  had  the  courage,  to  fight  against  this 
laxity  of  feeling.  Such  laxity  is  far  more  dangerous 
than  the  most  strenuous  opposition. 

Happily,  Ezra  was  able  to  mend  matters.  He  was 
a  priest  and  a  Scribe  of  the  Law  of  Moses.  It  was 
his  endeavor  to  obtain  a  knowledge  of  that  Law  and 
to  bring  it  into  use.  Among  the  priests  in  Babylon 
a  spirit  like  his  own  prevailed,  quite  different  from 
that  of  their  brethren  in  Judah.  When  Ezra  learned 
what  the  state  of  things  was  there,  he  made  up  his 
mind  to  go  and  bring  about  a  reformation  if  he  could. 
He  asked  leave  of  King  Artaxerxes  to  go  to  Jerusa- 
lem, and,  with  his  permission,  he  set  out  with  a  party 
of  1,496  men,  besides  a  number  of  priests,  Levites, 
and  singers,  and  a  few  descendants  of  David.  The 
journey  was  safely  accomplished,  and  on  his  arrival 
at  Jerusalem  a  great  festival  was  held. 

But  the  joy  which  the  success  of  the  journey 
inspired  was  soon  rudely  disturbed ;  for  Ezra  learned 
that  a  number  of  Israelites,  actually  including  some 
priests  and  Levites,  had  taken  foreign  wives.  This 
seemed  to  him  a  horrible  sin,  and  pained  him  very 
deeply.  He  mourned  publicly  and  humbled  himself 
before  Yahweh.  But,  when  the  people  were  come 


i8o  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

together,  he  succeeded  in  persuading  them,  almost  to 
a  man,  to  resolve  to  live  in  obedience  to  the  Law, 
and  to  send  away  their  foreign  wives  and  their 
children.  There  were  only  four  men  who  ventured  to 
resist,  and  their  opposition  was  to  no  purpose ;  the 
resolution  was  shortly  afterwards  carried  into  effect, 
and  about  a  hundred  sent  away  their  foreign  wives. 

However  harsh  such  a  measure  might  be,  it  was  to 
all  appearance  absolutely  necessary.  If  the  Israelites 
had  not  been  kept  strictly  aloof  from  all  alliances 
with  the  surrounding  peoples,  they  must  inevitably 
before  long  have  lost  all  separate  existence,  and  the 
further  development  of  their  religion  would  have  been 
for  ever  after  impossible.  We  may  easily  guess, 
however,  that  it  was  not  every  one  that  agreed  with 
Ezra  and  his  friends,  and  that  not  a  few  considered 
the  measures  he  adopted  too  hard.  There  might 
well  be  those  even  among  the  faithful  worshipers  of 
Yahweh  who  took  a  milder  view  about  the  heathen, 
and  that,  too,  not  only  from  philanthropy,  but  from 
the  expectation  which  they  entertained  that,  by 
intercourse  with  the  Israelites,  the  other  nations 
would  be  led  to  acknowledge  the  deity  of  Yahweh. 
Such  is  the  view  that  we  meet  with  in  the  books  of 
RUTH  and  JONAH,  the  writers  of  which,  in  all  like- 
lihood, flourished  at  this  time.  In  the  former  of 
these  books  we  have  the  story  of  a  Moabitish  woman, 
who,  by  her  marriage  with  an  Israelite,  became  the 
ancestress  of  David.  This  fact,  which  is  probably 


Ezra  and  his  Times.  181 

historical,  is  adduced  in  protest  against  the  aims  of 
Ezra.  That  union  between  an  Israelite  and  a  foreign 
woman,  at  any  rate,  had  had  Yahweh's  blessing  in  an 
extraordinary  degree,  and  it  was  argued,  therefore, 
that  he  could  not  approve  of  the  rough  measures 
which  Ezra  was  taking. 

The  same  thing  is  put  still  more  forcibly  in  the 
Book  of  Jonah.  The  writer  applies  fiction  to  show 
that  Yahweh  abstains  from  executing  the  prophecies 
formerly  declared,  out  of  compassion  for  the  heathen. 
Many  of  his  contemporaries  were  both  surprised  and 
vexed  that  these  prophecies  remained  so  long  unac- 
complished. Jonah,  the  chief  character  in  the  book, 
affords  a  striking  type  of  this  sentiment.  He  longs 
to  see  the  destruction  of  the  heathen,  and  murmurs 
against  Yahweh  for  being  so  patient  and  compas- 
sionate towards  them.  The  writer,  on  the  other  hand, 
shows  why  Yahweh  is  so  merciful.  The  heathen  are 
being  converted  and  coming  to  the  fear  of  Yahweh ; 
and  that  is  why  the  prophecies  are  not  fulfilled.  It 
is  clear  from  the  above  that  this  writer  has  quite  a 
different  way  of  thinking  from  Ezra.  Indeed,  we 
may  affirm  that  there  is  no  other  book  in  the  Old 
Testament  which  judges  the  heathen  so  tenderly. 

Ezra's  measure  in  reference  to  the  foreign  women 
was  only  the  first  step  towards  the  reformation  which 
he  was  anxious  to  bring  about.  He  intended  nothing 
less  than  the  introduction  of  the  priestly  legislation; 
and  it  is  to  this  momentous  achievement  that  we  must 


1 82  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

now  turn  our  attention.  Ezra  could  not,  however, 
carry  this  out  all  at  once.  Shortly  after  his  arrival  at 
Jerusalem,  and  as  soon  as  he  had  accomplished  the 
expulsion  of  the  foreign  women,  he  seems  to  have 
withdrawn  for  thirteen  years,  on  account,  we  may 
surmise,  of  the  political  situation  not  being  favorable 
to  his  purpose.  It  is  probable  that  he  was  engaged 
during  this  interval  in  modifying  the  priestly  legisla- 
tion which  he  had  brought  with  him  from  Babylon, 
and  adapting  it  to  the  state  of  things  in  Judea.  At 
the  end  of  this  period  Nehemiah  came  to  Jerusalem, 
arriving  there  in  the  year  445  before  Christ.  He  had 
been  cup-bearer  at  the  court  of  King  Artaxerxes,  and 
being  appointed  governor  by  that  prince,  obtained 
leave  to  rebuild  the  ruined  walls  of  Jerusalem.  He 
immediately  manifested  his  sympathy  with  Ezra,  and 
powerfully  seconded  his  endeavors.  Some  time  after 
his  arrival  —  how  long,  we  are  not  told  —  he  gathered 
the  people  together  in  Jerusalem  to  hear  the  Law, 
which  Ezra  read  aloud,  section  by  section,  for  several 
days  running.  Finally,  a  day  of  repentance  was 
held,  and  then  both  priests  and  people  made  a  solemn 
vow  to  keep  the  Law  of  God. 

Nehemiah  himself  left  Jerusalem  again  in  the  year 
433  before  Christ;  but  only  to  come  back  a  little 
while  afterwards,  when  he  found  many  abuses  being 
practised  in  defiance  of  the  Law ;  and  to  these  he 
set  himself  in  violent  opposition.  Thus,  the  Sabbath 
was  not  kept  holy,  and  many  Jews  had  again  married 


Ezra  and  his  Times.  183 

foreign  wives.  These  women  had  to  be  sent  away 
again  by  his  orders.  One  of  the  transgressors,  a 
priest,  probably  Manasseh,  a  grandson  of  the  high- 
priest,  who  had  married  a  woman  of  Samaria,  refused 
to  yield,  and  was  obliged  to  quit  the  country.  He 
withdrew  to  Samaria,  and  became  high-priest  in  the 
temple  on  Mount  Gerizim,  which  was  built  at  his 
earnest  suggestion. 

We  see  from  all  this  that  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
could  not  boast  of  universal  acquiescence  on  the  part 
of  the  people.  We  have  already  referred  to  the 
Books  of  Ruth  and  Jonah,  which  breathe  quite  a 
different  spirit  to  theirs.  Opposition  began  to  show 
itself,  too,  among  the  priests,  as  we  see  by  the  prophe- 
cies of  Malachi,  who  lived  at  this  time,  and  severely 
blamed  the  people,  and  the  priests  too,  for  the  laxity 
of  their  allegiance  to  the  Law  of  Moses.  In  estima- 
ting this  opposition,  which  was  so  earnest  on  the  part 
of  many,  we  must  observe  that  it  was  something  new 
that  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  wanted  to  introduce.  The 
Law  which  they  publicly  read  and  made  binding  on 
the  nation  had  not  hitherto  been  known  in  Israel,  and 
comprised  many  an  injunction  which  trenched  more 
or  less  on  the  olden  freedom.  There  were,  as  we  have 
seen,  not  a  few  who  could  not  acquiesce  in  such  com- 
plete separation  from  other  peoples.  But  the  most 
important  point  was  that  Ezra's  reforms  were  conceived 
in  altogether  a  different  spirit  from  that  which  had 
been  manifested  of  old.  Instead  of  the  free  word,  there 


1 84  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

was  now  the  written  Law;  instead  of  the  independent 
attitude  of  the  prophets,  who  judged  everything 
according  to  the  word  which  Yahweh  spoke  to  them, 
there  was  now  the  submission  to  the  authority  of  the 
Law.  It  must  not,  however,  be  supposed  that  Ezra 
was  aware  that  he  was  following  a  different  path 
from  the  prophets :  on  the  contrary,  he  valued  their 
writings  very  highly,  and  supposed  himself  to  be 
carrying  on  their  work  in  perfect  harmony  with  their 
intentions.  And,  indeed,  however  anti-prophetic  his 
efforts  may  have  been,  they  were  the  necessary  fruit 
of  the  work  which  the  prophets  had  done.  They  had 
preached  Yahweh  as  the  god  of  Israel,  and  it  was 
under  the  influence  of  this  preaching  that  Josiah 
undertook  his  reformation  and  carried  it  through. 
And  Ezra  only  followed  the  same  track.  But  he 
sought  what  the  prophets  had  sought,  in  his  own  way. 
It  had  been  their  endeavor  to  make  their  country- 
men Yahweh's  people  by  means  of  a  spirit  of  free- 
dom, and  they  had  laid  stress  on  what  was  inward,  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  outward  form.  But  they  had 
failed  to  achieve  their  purpose,  because  they  stood 
too  far  above  the  people,  and  were  never  quite  under- 
stood by  them.  And  now  Ezra,  resolved  to  attempt 
what  they  had  failed  in,  employing,  however,  the 
fixed  forms  and  definitions  of  the  Law  instead  of  the 
prophetic  freedom  of  speech.  Not  that  he  himself 
clearly  saw  the  difference,  but  that  the  changes  which 
time  had  brought  about  made  it  natural  for  him  to 


Ezra  and  his  Times.  185 

proceed  in  this  way.  Ezra  was  no  prophet ;  he  was 
priest  and  scribe.  Nor  was  there  any  prophets  after 
him.  Malachi  was  the  last  of  them,  and  even  he  had 
a  good  deal  of  the  scribe  in  him.  When  once  the 
Law  got  a  footing  in  Israel,  there  ceased  to  be  any 
sphere  for  the  prophet,  with  his  inspired  and  spon- 
taneous utterance.  The  Law  prescribed  everything 
that  was  to  be  done,  and  squeezed  the  national  life 
into  its  own  narrow  mould  of  institutions  and  com- 
mandments. 

This  legislation  which  Ezra  introduced  is  scattered 
through  the  Pentateuch  among  passages  of  greater  anti- 
quity. In  a  previous  chapter  we  examined  those  older 
passages.  We  saw  that  the  five  books  of  Moses,  as  they 
are  called,  were  first  edited  in  the  middle  of  the  eighth 
century  before  Christ.  The  author,  who  was  a  prophet, 
wrote  the  history  of  his  nation  and  incorporated  a 
few  laws.  And  we  discussed  in  detail  the  Deuterono- 
mist,  who  wrote  his  laws  during  the  reign  of  Josiah. 
And  now  we  must  say  a  word  about  "The  Book  of 
Origins."  Such  is  the  name  which  has  been  given 
to  that  part  of  the  Pentateuch  which  was  written  by 
priests,  or  under  priestly  influence,  in  the  captivity, 
between  538  and  458  before  Christ.  We  find  no 
traces  of  it  before  the  beginning  of  that  period,  and 
it  was  in  the  latter  year  that  Ezra  brought  the  book 
with  him  from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem.  He  made  some 
modifications  in  it  and  constituted  it  a  code  of  law 
for  Israel,  dovetailing  it  into  those  parts  of  the  Penta- 
24 


1 86  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

tench  which  existed  before.  A  few  alterations  and 
additions  were  subsequently  made  \  but  these  are  of 
minor  importance,  and  we  may  fairly  say  that  Ezra 
put  the  Pentateuch  into  the  form  in  which  we  have  it. 
These  priestly  passages  are  partly  occupied  with 
historical  mattter,  comprising  a  very  free  account  of 
things  from  the  creation  of  the  world  to  the  arrival 
of  Israel  in  Canaan.  Everything  is  here  represented 
from  a  priestly  point  of  view ;  some  events,  elsewhere 
recorded,  are  touched  up  in  the  priestly  spirit,  and 
others  are  entirely  invented.  At  the  very  outset,  the 
account  of  the  creation  from  the  hand  of  the  priestly 
author  (Gen.  i.  i-ii.  3)  is  utterly  different  from  the 
older  prophetic  narrative  beginning  at  the  fourth  verse 
of  Gen.  ii.  Here  we  are  told  that  God  created 
heaven  and  earth  in  six  days  and  rested  on  the 
seventh  day,  obviously  with  a  view  to  bring  out  the 
holiness  of  the  Sabbath  in  a  strong  light.  There  is 
nothing  about  this  in  the  more  ancient  passages.  In 
his  accounts  of  the  earliest  generations  of  men,  of  the 
flood,  and  of  the  patriarchs,  the  priestly  writer  is  very 
brief,  though  his  endeavor  to  draw  the  reader's  atten- 
tion to  a  gradual  growth  of  God's  revelation  to  his 
people  is  plainly  discernible.  At  first  God  is  called 
Elohim  exclusively;  further  on,  Abraham  calls  him 
El-Shaddai ;  while  he  finally  reveals  himself  to  Moses 
as  Yahweh.  According  to  this  author,  no  sacrifice 
was  offered  in  olden  times,  though,  on  the  other  hand, 
circumcision  is  put  as  early  as  Abraham  as  a  sign  of 


Ezra  and  his  Times.  187 

the  covenant  which  El-Shaddai  made  with  him.  He 
tells  us  nothing  about  the  youth  of  Moses,  but  in  his 
account  of  the  deliverance  out  of  Egypt  he  follows 
tradition.  With  the  death  of  the  first-born  in  Egypt 
he  connects  the  institution  of  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread  together  with  the  description  of  the  paschal 
offering.  He,  too,  states  that  the  law  was  given  on 
Mount  Sinai,  but,  for  the  rest,  he  by  no  means  binds 
himself  down  to  tradition.  He  describes  in  detail 
the  tabernacle  and  the  ark:  Yahweh  himself  tells 
Moses  exactly  how  they  are  to  be  arranged.  It  does 
not  trouble  our  author  in  the  least  that  he  is  here 
utterly  at  variance  with  history.  The  real  tabernacle 
was  nothing  but  a  simple  tent;  but  the  description 
which  we  find  here  is  borrowed  from  the  temple  of 
Jerusalem,  and  so  highly  satisfied  were  the  priests 
with  that  temple  that  they  refashioned  the  tabernacle 
of  by-gone  days  on  that  model,  and  even  shaped  the 
precepts  of  Yahweh  accordingly.  In  harmony  with 
this,  we  are  informed  that  sacrifice  might  only  be 
offered  at  this  tabernacle.  We  are  told,  further,  that 
Moses  appointed  the  sons  of  Aaron  to  be  priests,  and 
gave  the  rest  of  the  Levites  lower  offices  in  con- 
nection with  the  services  of  religion.  Both  statements 
are  equally  unhistorical,  and  arise  from  the  priestly 
opinions  of  the  Babylonish  law-giver. 

Besides  this  refashioning  of  history  from  a  priestly 
point  of  view,  we  have  a  great  number  of  laws  here, 
some  of  which  are  incorporated  in  the  Book  of 


1 88  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

Exodus,  and  many  more  in  Leviticus  and  Numbers. 
The  most  important  of  these  will  occupy  our  atten- 
tion further  on ;  at  present  we  need  only  allude  to  the 
peculiarly  priestly  character  which  is  distinctly  dis- 
cernible in  all  these  laws.  The  author  has  evidently 
set  himself  to  put  the  priestly  idea  into  a  fixed  form, 
and  to  incorporate  it  in  the  framework  of  Israel's 
legislative  code.  There  are  full  regulations  concern- 
ing the  mutual  relations  of  the  priests  and  all  their 
duties;  settled  rules  are  laid  down  about  the  cele- 
bration of  the  Sabbath  and  the  festivals,  clean  and 
unclean,  and  the  contribution  of  tithes  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  priests  and  Levites.  In  short,  it  is  a 
purely  sacerdotal  system  that  we  have  here,  and  the 
ideal  which  the  legislator  held  before  him  was  clearly 
nothing  less  than  to  make  Israel  a  clean  nation,  keep- 
ing faithfully  the  commandments  of  Yahweh. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

PUBLIC   WORSHIP   AND   THE   SYNAGOGUE. 

"\  T  7E  proceed  to  pass  under  review  the  principal 
regulations  of  the  priestly  legislation  in  their 
action  on  the  religious  life  of  Israel  after  Ezra.  It 
must  not,  however,  be  understood  that  everything 
was  now  precisely  and  unalterably  settled,  so  as  to 


Public   Worship  and  the  Synagogue.      189 

admit  of  no  modification  whatever.  On  the  contrary, 
even  after  Ezra  additions  were  made  to  the  existing 
Law  here  and  there,  while  oral  tradition  gave  free 
scope  for  interpreting  and  applying  certain  command- 
ments differently  from  the  way  which  the  Law 
prescribed,  in  obedience  to  the  necessity  of  the 
moment,  and  according  to  circumstances. 

Public  worship  and  everything  connected  with  it 
are  regulated  in  detail  under  the  priestly  legislation. 
The  temple  itself  was,  in  the  main,  similar  to  that  of 
Solomon.  Except  that  it  was  not  so  splendid  as  his, 
the  only  difference  was  that  the  holy  of  holies  was 
separated  from  the  holy  place  with  a  curtain,  and  not 
with  doors  that  opened  and  shut,  as  it  had  been 
before.  The  high-priest  might  only  enter  once  a 
year,  on  the  great  day  of  Atonement.  This  rule 
arose  from  the  new  conception  of  Yahweh's  nature, 
as  being  separated  from  his  people  by  reason  of  his 
purity  and  holiness.  In  former  times,  the  prophets 
had  taught  that  Yahweh  spoke  to  his  servants  and 
entered  into  more  confidential  intercourse  with  them ; 
but  now  Yahweh's  character  was  considered  to  be  so 
highly  exalted,  that  he  must  always  remain  hidden 
from  the  unclean,  and  even  from  the  priests,  with  the 
single  exception  of  the  high-priest  himself;  and  this 
functionary  was  also  now  regarded  as  the  only  person 
qualified  to  consult  Yahweh  by  means  of  the  urim 
and  thummim,  which  were  used  in  a  sort  of  divination. 

The  respective   functions  of    the  priests  and  the 


190  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

Levites,  too,  were  now  regulated  minutely.  We  have 
already  remarked  that  the  new  legislation  adopted 
the  idea  that  none  but  the  sons  of  Aaron  might  serve 
at  the  temple  sacrifices.  But  this  limitation  had  no 
ground  in  history.  Those  priestly  families  which  had 
formerly  offered  sacrifice  in  the  temple  of  Solomon 
had  acquired  by  degrees  a  certain  precedence  over 
the  priests  of  the  high  places  who  were  attached  to 
the  temple  at  Jerusalem  by  King  Josiah,  but  were 
not  qualified  to  kindle  the  offerings.  And  now  it 
was  pretended  in  the  legislative  writings  that  these 
all  belonged  to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  but  that  the  priests 
of  higher  rank  who  had  been  attached  to  the  temple 
all  along  were  the  descendants  of  Aaron,  while  all 
the  rest,  being  descended  from  the  priests  of  the 
high  places,  were  excluded  from  all  priestly  employ- 
ment, properly  so  called,  and  were  regarded  as  mere 
supernumeraries  for  executing  the  minor  duties.  And 
for  the  future  the  singers  were  ranked  along  with 
them ;  while  everything  connected  with  the  sacrifices 
and  with  the  regulations  about  clean  and  unclean 
was  entrusted  exclusively  to  the  priests. 

The  sacrifices  were  very  numerous.  The  most 
important  were  the  "burnt-offerings"  which  were 
offered  for  the  honor  and  glory  of  Yahweh,  as  an 
acknowledgment  of  his  deity.  One  of  them  was 
kindled  every  morning  and  every  evening.  The 
"  thank-offerings  "  were  made  both  at  general  festivals 
and  at  special  ones,  as  an  expression  of  joy  at  the 


Public   Worship  and  the  Synagogue.      191 

blessings  given  by  Yahweh.  Then  there  were  the 
"sin-offerings"  and  the  "guilt-offerings"  which  were 
so  much  alike  in  many  respects,  that  it  is  not  quite 
clear  to  us  how  they  differed  in  signification.  One  of 
these  offerings  might  be  made  for  every  slip  and 
every  unwitting  neglect,  but  not  for  a  sin  deliberately 
committed.  The  delinquent  brought  his  victim  to 
the  temple ;  he  laid  his  hand  on  the  animal's  head, 
and  then  slaughtered  it ;  the  blood  was  caught,  and 
the  priest  sprinkled  it  on  the  altar  or  the  curtain,  and, 
finally,  the  animal  was  partially  burnt.  The  significa- 
tion of  the  sacrifice  was  not  that  the  guilt  was 
transferred  from  the  man  to  the  victim,  but  that 
Yahweh  in  his  mercy  accepted  the  animal's  soul 
instead  of  that  of  the  sinner.  The  occasions  on 
which  people  were  obliged  to  bring  an  offering  of 
this  kind  were  innumerable,  and  this  diminished  its 
significance  very  much,  and  could  not  fail  to  lead  the 
Israelite  to  be  less  afraid,  on  the  one  hand,  of 
uncleanness  and  the  minor  transgressions  resulting 
from  carelessness  or  neglect,  inasmuch  as  he  could 
make  atonement  with  an  offering,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  to  become  less  sensitive  to  his  moral  responsi- 
bility for  graver  offences,  inasmuch  as  they  might 
easily  be  counted  by  the  priest  as  among  the  delin- 
quencies admitting  of  expiation.  Thus,  in  spite  of 
the  contrary  intention  of  the  legislator,  the  sacrificial 
theory  tended  from  the  first  to  anything  but  the 
strengthening  of  the  moral  sentiment,  and,  by  and 


1 92  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

by,  when  the  national  thought  and  feeling  had  thor- 
oughly assimilated  it,  it  led  to  formalism. 

Similar  results  accrued  from  the  regulations  about 
clean  and  unclean.  Great  importance  was  attached  to 
them  in  the  priestly  legislation.  The  legislator  set 
out  from  the  principle  that  Israel,  being  Yahweh's 
people,  must  be  a  clean  people  par  excellence.  But 
every  Israelite  was  liable  to  incur  uncleanness  in  a 
multitude  of  different  ways,  some  of  them  accidental 
and  others  unavoidable.  He  might  not  eat  blood; 
he  might  never  eat  the  flesh  of  unclean  animals, 
and  that  of  clean  ones  only  if  they  had  not  died  a 
natural  death.  Touching  a  dead  body,  too,  made  a 
man  unclean,  and  so  did  certain  diseases,  especially 
leprosy.  Accordingly,  it  was  minutely  prescribed 
how  to  become  clean  again  in  all  these  cases,  and 
what  offerings  to  make  afterwards. 

Detailed  regulations  were  laid  down  for  the  three 
great  festivals.  In  general,  the  practices  sanctioned 
by  long  usage  were  retained,  and  only  had  a  few 
injunctions  added  to  them.  As  we  have  already 
observed,  it  is  probable  that  these  festivals  were  as 
old  as  Solomon.  In  the  Book  of  Covenants,  *  and 
especially  in  Deuteronomy,  they  had  been  described 
with  more  or  less  detail,  and  now,  in  the  priestly 
legislation,  they  received  some  further  modification. 

The  Passover,  or  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  had 
originally  been  connected  with  the  worship  of  nature. 
*  See  page  10. 


Public    Worship  and  the  Synagogue.      193 

But  at  a  very  early  date,  it  had  b^en  brought  into 
connection  with  the  recollection  of  the  deliverance 
out  of  Egypt.  Afterwards  the  eating  of  the  paschal 
lamb  was  added  to  it.  A  lamb  had  been  offered  to 
Yahweh  in  old  times,  by  way  of  redeeming  the  first- 
born son  —  a  practice  in  harmony  with  the  conception 
of  Yahweh  as  a  nature-god  who  had  a  right  to  the 
first-born  even  of  men.  From  this  came  the  term 
"pascha"  or  "phesach,"  meaning,  Yahweh  passes 
over  the  first-born  because  a  sacrifice  is  offered  to 
him  in  redemption.  Thus  this  offering  bore  a  private 
character  at  first,  but  in  the  course  of  time  it  came 
to  be  made  on  the  same  day  by  everybody,  and  that, 
too,  at  the  time  of  one  of  the  annual  festivals,  that 
of  unleavened  bread.  The  Deuteronomist  does  not 
say  much  about  it,  because  it  reminds  him  of  offer- 
ings of  the  same  kind  which  were  made  to  Molech. 
But  the  priestly  legislator,  knowing  nothing  of  any 
such  danger,  finds  a  place  in  his  legislation  for  this 
primeval  usage  of  his  people,  at  the  same  time 
entirely  transforming  its  significance,  and  harmo- 
nizing it  with  Yahwism.  The  offering  of  the  paschal 
lamb  is  turned  into  a  festive  meal  for  all  the  families 
of  Israel,  in  commemoration  of  the  day  when  Yahweh 
slew  all  the  first-born  sons  of  Egypt. 

The  Feast  of  Weeks,  afterwards  called  Pentecost, 
from  a  Greek  word  signifying  the  fiftieth  day,  con- 
tinued to  be  the  feast  of  the  first-fruits  of  the  corn- 
harvest.  It  was  only  at  a  much  later  time,  after 


194  The  Religion  of  Israel, 

the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era,  that  it  was 
brought  into  connection  with  the  legislation  of  Mount 
Sinai.  The  Feast  of  Tabernacles  was  a  harvest- 
festival,  held  when  all  the  fruits  of  the  soil  had  been 
gathered,  and  served  also  as  a  commemoration  of  the 
sojourn  in  the  wilderness.  Besides  these  festivals, 
with  which  we  are  already  acquainted,  we  find  in  the 
priestly  legislation  a  new  one,  that  of  the  moon, 
which  was  to  be  observed  on  the  first  day  of  every 
month,  and  especially  of  the  seventh  month. 

We  ought  here  to  note  that  the  legislator  shows  no 
little  practical  sagacity  in  his  changes  and  additions. 
The  origin  of  the  paschal  sacrifice  was  in  anything 
but  conformity  with  his  principles;  and  the  same 
may  be  said  of  the  feast  of  the  moon,  which  was  con- 
nected with  the  worship  of  the  moon-goddess.  But 
both  usages  had  firmly  established  themselves  in  the 
national  life.  The  Deuteronomist  had  little  sympathy 
with  them,  and  the  prophets  less,  and  they  would 
have  been  glad  enough  if  it  had  been  possible  to 
banish  them  from  Israel  altogether.  The  priest,  on 
the  other  hand,  incorporated  them  in  his  legislation, 
but  gave  them  a  new  significance.  He  thus  enabled 
the  people  to  keep  their  old  customs,  while  so  modi- 
fying them  that  they  could  no  longer  be  hurtful  to 
Yahwism.  On  the  contrary,  the  old  usages,  which 
had  struck  their  roots  so  deep,  became  integral  parts 
of  the  service  of  Yahweh.  And  the  result  was  that 
the  priests  got  much  more  influence  over  the  people 


Public   Worship  and  the  Synagogue.     195 

than  the  prophets  had  ever  had.  It  was  the  priests 
who  were  the  first  to  achieve  what  the  prophets  had 
desired,  and  to  make  Israel  Yahweh's  people. 

Of  course  our  legislator  retained  the  Sabbath.  He 
laid  the  utmost  stress  on  the  rest  with  which  that  day 
was  to  be  consecrated  to  Yahweh,  making  death  the 
penalty  of  disobedience  to  this  law.  He  gave  precise 
directions  as  to  what  kind  of  work  was  to  be  con: 
sidered  necessary  and  what  was  not,  and,  as  we  have 
seen  already,  he  enforced  the  sanctity  of  the  Sabbath 
with  a  reference  to  Yahweh  himself,  who  had  worked 
six  days  at  the  creation  of  the  world  and  rested  on 
the  seventh  day. 

The  most  important  day  in  the  whole  year  in  the 
legislator's  eyes  was  the  Great  Day  of  Atonement, 
which  fell  on  the  tenth  of  the  seventh  month.  Atone- 
ment was  then  made  for  all  involuntary  sins.  It  was 
considered  that  the  whole  nation  and  country  had 
become  unclean  through  the  transgression  of  the 
moral  and  the  ceremonial  Law,  and  the  Great  Day 
of  Atonement  was  intended  as  a  provision  against 
this.  It  was  a  day  of  humiliation  —  the  only  day  on 
which  every  one  was  obliged  to  fast,  refraining  from 
both  meat  and  drink.  The  high-priest  had  first  to 
offer  up  a  young  bullock  as  a  sin-offering  for  himself ; 
while  for  the  people  there  were  two  goats,  between 
which  lots  were  cast,  and  one  was  for  Yahweh  and 
the  other  for  Azazel,  which  was  probably  the  name  of 
a  wicked  spirit.  The  goat  which  fell  to  Yahweh  was 


196  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

then  offered  up  as  a  sin-offering  by  the  high-priest, 
and  its  blood,  as  well  as  that  of  the  young  bullock, 
was  sprinkled  in  the  holy  place  and  the  holy  of  holies. 
This  was  the  only  day  on  which  the  high-priest  might 
go  in  before  the  face  of  Yahweh  in  the  holy  of  holies. 
Then  he  made  confession  of  all  the  sins  and  trans- 
gressions of  the  people,  and  laid  them  upon  the  head 
of  the  second  goat,  which  was  thereupon  sent  away 
into  the  wilderness,  where  Azazel  was  supposed  to 
dwell.  Finally,  the  high-priest  offered  up  one  ram 
as  a  burnt-offering  to  Yahweh  for  himself,  and  another 
for  the  people.  The  underlying  thought  was  that  in 
the  goat  dedicated  to  Yahweh  a  clean  soul  was  offered 
to  the  Holy  One,  while  a  whole  year's  sins,  and  all 
the  uncleanness  incurred  by  temple,  soil,  or  people 
were  transferred  to  the  scape-goat,  so  that  Israel  was 
made  clean  again  before  the  sight  of  Yahweh. 

We  need  not  enter  into  the  further  regulations  laid 
down  in  the  priestly  Law.  All  that  we  want  is  to  get 
some  notion  of  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  conceived, 
and  the  ends  that  it  proposed  to  itself.  This  legisla- 
tion gave  a  new  direction  to  the  life  of  the  Israelites, 
and  impregnated  the  national  thought  and  feeling 
with  the  principles  of  Yahwism.  Henceforth  progress 
became  possible  in  a  new  direction,  nor  was  it  long 
before  such  progress  was  actually  made ;  and  it  is  on 
this,  the  necessary  consequence  of  the  introduction  of 
this  legislation,  that  we  must  now  fix  our  attention. 


Public   Worship  and  the  Synagogue.      197 

Ezra's  disciples,  the  scribes,  inspired  with  a  kindred 
sentiment  to  his  own,  carried  on  his  labors.  We  are 
left  in  ignorance  whether  Ezra  himself  guided  them 
in  their  action  and  drew  up  fixed  rules  for  them,  or 
whether  such  regulations  were  only  dictated  by  the 
force  of  circumstances  after  his  death.  In  any  case, 
Jerusalem  was  the  head-quarters  of  their  activity  and 
the  centre  from  which  they  spread  themselves  all 
over  the  country.  Their  very  name  discloses  the  fact 
that  they  were  skilled  in  the  knowledge  of  Scripture, 
especially  the  Law  of  Moses;  and  on  this  account 
they  are  also  called  "  lawyers  "  in  the  New  Testament, 
without  any  distinct  difference  of  meaning  in  the 
terms.  They  employed  themselves  in  copying  the 
Law,  and  especially  in  explaining  and  applying  it, 
which  was  a  particularly  necessary  thing  to  do  •  for 
the  legislation,  having  originally  been  drawn  up  in 
Babylon,  frequently  came  into  collision  with  things 
as  they  actually  existed  in  Judaea.  It  is  true  that 
Ezra  himself  had  introduced  a  great  many  modifica- 
tions ;  but  these  did  not  always  prove  sufficient.  So 
whenever  some  change  was  manifestly  required,  the 
Scribes  modified  or  elaborated  the  text  of  the  Law, 
always,  however,  preserving  the  main  principle  unim- 
paired. And  if  change  of  circumstances  called  for 
some  entirely  new  regulation,  the  case  was  met  by 
what  was  called  "oral  tradition,"  which  continued  to 
maintain  its  place  side  by  side  with  the  Law.  Its 
origin  was  ascribed  to  Moses,  just  as  that  of  the  Law 


198  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

was ;  so  that  it  enjoyed  a  divine  authority  no  less  than 
the  Law.  But  being  more  elastic  than  the  Law,  it 
could  be  used  with  advantage  in  such  contingencies 
as  the  Law  had  not  provided  for. 

These  changes  in  the  text  of  the  Law,  and  the  new 
regulations  established  by  oral  tradition  in  the  cen- 
turies subsequent  to  Ezra,  are  ascribed  to  "  the  men 
of  the  Great  Synagogue,"  at  Jerusalem.  Of  these 
men  we  know  comparatively  little.  It  may  be  taken 
as  historical  that,  from  the  time  of  Ezra  until  the 
second  century  before  our  era,  they  formed  a  central 
association  of  scribes  at  Jerusalem.  Perhaps  they 
met  in  some  special  building  which  must  be  called 
"  great "  in  comparison  with  the  numerous  smaller 
synagogues  which  were  erected  in  Jerusalem  at  one 
time  or  another.  Their  influence  and  authority 
extended  far  and  wide.  Judaism  has  to  thank  them 
for  its  preservation  and  development.  They  spread 
the  knowledge  of  the  Law  among  their  countrymen, 
and  made  its  observance  feasible.  They  found  means 
to  keep  the  national  religion  of  Israel  free  from 
foreign  elements  which  would  have  led  to  its  dissolu- 
tion. They  awakened  and  kept  alive  in  the  hearts  of 
their  people  a  strong  affection  for  the  Law,  which 
was  to  prove  its  vitality  in  the  midst  of  the  fiercest 
struggles. 

Since  it  was  the  aim  of  the  scribes  to  bring  the 
people  under  the  dominion  of  the  Law,  they  naturally 
endeavored  forthwith  to  make  them  familiar  with  it. 


Public    Worship  and  the  Synagogue.      199 

Their  great  instrument  in  this  work  was  the  Syna- 
gogue; and  it  was  from  this  word  that  the  persons 
mentioned  above  derived  their  title.  The  word 
"synagogue"  is  Greek,  and  means  an  assembly. 
It  stands  for  a  hall  or  building  in  which  the  Jews 
assembled  to  listen  to  the  reading  of  the  Law.  We 
are  but  imperfectly  informed  about  the  origin  of  this 
custom.  We  know  that,  towards  the  close  of  the- 
captivity,  the  Jews  in  Babylon  used  to  meet  together 
to  hear  an  address  from  one  of  the  prophets  or  the 
reading  of  the  older  prophets,  and  subsequently  of 
the  Law.  And,  although  we  are  not  told  so  in  so 
many  words,  it  is  more  than  probable  that  Ezra  intro- 
duced this  custom  into  Jerusalem  too,  and  that  it 
found  its  way  thence  into  other  cities  of  Judaea,  and 
came  to  be  adopted  at  last  wherever  there  were  Jews 
living.  By  degrees  there  came  to  be  more  unity  and 
order  in  the  arrangements  of  the  meeting,  the  syna- 
gogues of  Jerusalem  being  made  the  model  for  the 
rest.  The  chief  thing  always  was,  as  it  had  been  at 
first,  the  reading  and  expounding  of  the  Law.  To 
this  was  added  the  recitation  of  certain  passages  of 
the  Law  containing  the  most  important  precepts ;  so 
was. the  rehearsal  of  a  prayer,  and,  by  and  by,  when 
Hebrew  was  no  longer  spoken,  the  translation  of  the 
Law  into  the  vernacular.  In  the  course  of  time  a 
special  portion  of  the  Law  was  appointed  to  be  read 
on  each  Sabbath-day,  of  such  a  length  that  the  whole 
could  be  got  through  in  three  years.  By  means  of 


2OO  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

this  practice  the  whole  of  the  people  were  made 
acquainted  with  the  Law,  and  the  scribes  had  abund- 
ant opportunity  of  explaining  and  propagating  their 
own  interpretations  of  it.  This  would  have  been 
quite  out  of  their  power  had  it  not  been  for  the 
synagogue.  The  temple  at  Jerusalem  could  not 
possibly  have  served  the  purpose.  True,  the  temple 
was  the  seat  of  worship,  and  there  it  was  that  sacrifice 
was  offered  and  that  the  faithful  gathered  together  at 
the  great  festivals;  but  it  was  beyond  its  scope  to 
spread  the  knowledge  of  the  Law  among  the  people. 
And  the  synagogue  was  not  in  opposition  to  the 
temple,  nor  was  it  any  substitute  for  the  temple  in  the 
towns  and  villages  of  Judaea.  It  merely  provided  for 
a  want  that  the  temple  was  not  calculated  to  meet. 
Indeed,  the  scribes  regarded  the  function  of  the 
synagogue  as  necessarily  subordinate  to  that  of  the 
temple ;  nor  is  there  the  slightest  indication  to  be 
found  that  it  impaired  in  the  least  the  consideration 
in  which  the  temple  was  held. 

We  may  easily  suppose  that  the  scribes  must  have 
exercised  a  most  powerful  influence.  When  once  the 
Law  was  received  as  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  a 
leading  place  was  secured  to  those  who  knew  the  Law 
and  expounded  it.  The  judges  who  were  called  upon 
by  the  Law  to  decide  matters  of  all  kinds,  could  not 
do  better  than  go  to  the  scribes  if  they  wanted  to 
understand  how  to  apply  the  different  precepts  to 
a  particular  case.  Week  by  week,  the  synagogue 


Public   Worship  and  the  Synagogue.      20 1 

brought  the  Law  before  the  congregation,  and  by  that 
means  brought  it  home  to  every  Israelite  in  his  indi- 
vidual and  domestic  life.  The  result  could  not  be 
doubtful ;  through  the  activity  of  the  scribes,  the  Law, 
and  the  oral  tradition  along  with  it,  really  became  the 
property  of  the  people,  and  the  universal  rule  of  life. 
Nor  must  it  be  supposed  that  they  looked  upon  it  as 
an  oppressive  burden,  and  only  bent  beneath  its  yoke 
because  they  were  obliged  ;  that  was  the  case  at  a  later 
period,  but  not  at  first.  The  scribes'  own  love  of  the 
Law  was  the  fruit  of  the  most  sacred  and  profound 
conviction  ;  their  devotion  to  it  was  unbounded ;  they 
regarded  it  with  the  deepest  piety,  and  revered  it  as 
the  word  of  God.  They  implanted  their  own  con- 
victions in  the  bosom  of  the  people ;  and  so  far  from 
following  the  Law  with  reluctance,  the  people  accepted 
it  with  their  whole  heart,  and  loved  it  sincerely. 
There  is  abundant  evidence  of  this.  The  majority  of 
the  songs  in  the  Book  of  Psalms  were  composed  in 
the  centuries  following  Ezra's  time,  when  the  success 
of  the  scribes  was  at  its  height.  Now  in  many  of 
these  Psalms,  we  find  the  most  fervent  praises  of  the 
Law,  and  so  sincere  and  hearty  are  they,  that  it  is  out 
of  the  question  to  suppose  that  the  poet  felt  its  yoke 
oppressive.  Indeed,  we  may  affirm  that  it  was  the 
scribes  who  were  the  first  to  teach  the  people  in 
general  to  love  Yahwism.  The  prophets,  the  founders 
proper  of  Israel's  religion,  men  of  a  sacred  enthusiasm, 
which  could  brook  no  fetters,  were  obliged  to  fight 


2O2  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

against  the  popular  opinions  and  attachment  to  the 
worship  of  strange  gods.  The  consequence  was  that, 
while  very  exclusive  towards  other  peoples,  they  were 
by  no  means  popular  with  their  own.  The  scribes, 
on  the  other  hand,  had  no  need  to  continue  the 
struggle  against  idolatry  and  image-worship ;  the 
great  thoughts  which  had  animated  the  prophets  had 
become  the  property  of  the  people,  and  Yahwism  had 
exclusive  sway  in  Israel.  Its  leading  principles  could 
now  be  further  unfolded  and  applied  in  a  variety  of 
ways ;  the  battle  for  its  establishment  had  already 
been  fought  and  won,  so  that  there  was  no  further 
occasion  for  confining  all  sympathy  to  what  was 
Israelitish ;  things  began  to  be  looked  at  from  the 
point  of  view  of  our  common  humanity,  and  thus  the 
scribes  approached,  in  this  respect,  the  stand-point  of 
the  sages ;  they  entered  upon  the  inheritance  of  the 
prophets,  but  avoided  their  one-sidedness.  Amongst 
the  fruits  of  their  teaching  are  most  of  those  psalms 
in  which  the  simple  sentiment  of  religion,  common  to 
various  races  of  men,  finds  such  beautiful  expression, 
that  we  ourselves,  though  removed  from  them  by  so 
many  centuries,  still  repeat  these  hymns  as  the  utter- 
ance of  our  own  religious  impressions  and  aspira- 
tions. 

One  point  more  must  be  discussed  here,  and  that 
is  the  relations  of  the  scribes  with  the  priests.  The 
question  suggests  itself,  whether  the  influence  and 
authority  of  the  latter  may  not  have  been  impaired  by 


Public   Worship  and  the  Synagogue.     203 

the  activity  of  the  scribes.  This  was  certainly  not  the 
case  at  first :  Ezra,  the  first  of  the  scribes,  was  him- 
self a  priest,  nor  would  this  combination  seem  to  have 
been  an  unusual  one.  As  the  priests  derived  their 
authority  from  the  Law,  they  could  not  be  indifferent 
to  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  scribes  could  not  do 
otherwise  than  support  the  priests,  inasmuch  as  the 
Law  assigned  to  them  the  first  place.  Thus  the 
power  of  the  priests  had  really  nothing  to  fear  from 
the  scribes,  and  the  high-priest  retained  the  influence 
which  he  possessed  as  the  head  of  the  state  under  the 
Persian  governor.  Nevertheless,  there  was  something 
in  the  mutual  relations  of  the  scribes  and  the  priests 
that  could  not  fail  by  and  by  to  lead  to  the  exaltation 
of  the  former  above  the  latter.  In  Ezra's  time,  many 
priests  had  strenuously  opposed  his  reforms;  and 
thus  it  was  impossible  in  the  nature  of  things  to 
entrust  them  with  the  maintenance  of  the  Law.  And 
so,  the  task  of  preserving,  propagating,  and  develop- 
ing the  oral  tradition  was  taken  away  from  them,  and 
their  influence  was  commensurately  impaired.  Before 
the  Law  was  written,  they  had  had  the  support  of  its 
authority,  and  had  been,  indeed,  in  a  sense,  them- 
selves the  Law.  But  now  that  the  Law  was  reduced 
to  writing,  its  authority  was  co-ordinate  with  theirs, 
or  rather  superior  to  it,  inasmuch  as  they  derived  all 
their  power  from  it.  So  that  they  lost  something; 
and  the  scribes,  being  the  official  interpreters  and 
preservers  of  the  Law,  could  not  but  grow  more  and 


2O4  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

more  influential.  No  wonder,  then,  that,  however 
little  foreseen  or  apprehended,  conflict  was  destined 
one  day  to  break  out,  and  that  the  Priest  was  doomed 
to  succumb  to  the  Scribe. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

THE  JEWS   IN  THE   AGE   IMMEDIATELY   PRECEDING  THE 
CHRISTIAN    ERA. 

IF  the  reader  is  correctly  to  understand  the  growth 
and  progress  of  religious  thought  and  feeling 
among  the  Israelites  during  the  age  immediately  pre- 
ceding the  Christian  era,  we  must  sketch  in  a  few 
strokes  the  condition  in  which  they  lived,  politically 
speaking,  during  that  period.  What  makes  it  especi- 
ally necessary  to  do  so  at  this  point  is,  that  it  was  in 
the  course  of  the  time  now  under  consideration,  that 
they  came  into  contact  with  the  civilization  of  the 
Greeks,  which  provoked  a  strenuous  opposition  on 
the  part  of  the  stricter  Jews,  and  exercised  a  most 
important  influence  on  their  condition  and  opinions. 

Under  the  Persian  rule,  the  Jews  enjoyed  a  certain 
measure  of  freedom.  It  is  true  they  were  under  a 
foreign  government ;  but  things  were  largely  left  in  the 
hands  of  the  high-priest,  and  as  his  power  was  continu- 
ally increasing,  he  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  the  head 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.  205 

of  the  state..  We  know  little  or  nothing  of  how  these 
high-priests  conducted  the  government  during  the 
century  following  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  When-  Alex- 
ander the  Great,  with  his  Greek  armies,  fell  upon 
Asia  to  overthrow  the  Persian  monarchy,  Jaddua  was 
high-priest  at  Jerusalem;  and  while  Alexander  was 
laying  siege  to  Tyre,  he  sent  to  invite  him  to  tender 
his  submission.  Jaddua  refused  at  first,  but  he  was 
unable  to  resist  the  mighty  conqueror.  Alexander 
entered  Jerusalem  in  the  year  332  before  Christ,  and 
Palestine  was  incorporated  in  his  dominions.  After 
his  death,  it  fell  to  the  share  of  Ptolemasus,  son  of 
Lagus,  who  took  Jerusalem  one  Sabbath-day,  and  led 
numbers  of  Jews  captive  to  Egypt.  After  several 
wars,  the  battle  of  Ipsus  secured  him  in  the  possession 
of  Judaea,  in  the  year  301  before  Christ.  Up  to  203 
before  Christ,  Palestine  remained  in  subjection  to 
Egypt,  in  spite  of  numerous  attacks  on  the  part  of 
the  Seleucidae,  who  ruled  over  Syria  and  Babylon.  In 
that  year,  however,  it  was  incorporated  in  the  king- 
dom of  the  Seleucidae,  and  consequently,  in  175 
before  Christ,  the  Jews  came  under  the  sceptre  of 
Antiochus  the  Fourth,  surnamed  Epiphanes,  the  son 
of  Antiochus  the  Third,  who  was  called  the  Great. 
In  the  reign  of  this  prince,  they  rebelled,  and  with 
such  courage  did  they  contend  against  the  generals 
of  Antiochus,  that,  in  164,  they  reconquered  Jeru- 
salem, and,  in  138,  Syria  acknowledged  their  inde- 
pendence. 


206  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

And  now  Judaea  was  once  more  an  independent 
state,  under  the  rule  of  the  men  who  had  placed  them- 
selves at  the  head  of  the  rebellion  and  brought  it  to 
so  successful  a  conclusion.  Judas,  surnamed  MAC- 
CAB^EUS,  or  the  hammer,  was  their  first  leader;  and 
was  succeeded  by  his  brothers,  Jonathan  and  Simon. 
It  was  under  the  last  of  these  that  Judaea  was  declared 
independent.  Their  family  is  generally  called  the 
ASMON^EANS,  after  one  of  their  ancestors.  Simon, 
having  been  murdered  in  the  year  135  before  Christ, 
was  succeeded  by  his  son,  John ;  and  he,  by  success- 
ful warfare,  greatly  extended  the  kingdom,  bringing 
Samaria,  Galilee,  and  the  region  beyond  Jordan  into 
subjection,  and  incorporating  the  Idumaeans,  as  the 
former  Edomites  were  now  called,  in  his  dominions. 
His  son,  Aristobulus  the  First,  was  the  first  who 
assumed  the  title  of  king,  and,  after  reigning  a  year, 
he  was  succeeded,  in  105  before  Christ,  by  his  brother, 
Alexander  Jannaeus,  whose  wife,  Alexandra,  reigned 
for  nine  years  after  his  death,  bringing  us  down  to  the 
year  70  before  Christ.  After  this,  a  fierce  contest 
broke  out  between  her  two  sons,  Aristobulus  and 
Hyrcanus,  the  latter  of  whom  filled  the  office  of  high- 
priest,  but  was  defeated  by  his  brother.  Antipater, 
the  Idumaean,  however,  the  favorite  of  Hyrcanus, 
managed  to  induce  him  to  renew  the  struggle.  But 
during  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Hyrcanus,  the 
Romans  mixed  themselves  in  the  quarrel  of  the  two 
brothers  and  assumed  the  part  of  umpires.  In  the 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.  207 

year  63  before  Christ,  Poinpey  the  Great  took  Jeru- 
salem, and  set  up  Hyrcanus  as  high-priest  and  king. 
Aristobulus  and  his  sons  continued  to  oppose  this 
arrangement,  and  the  help  of  the  Romans  proved 
necessary  to  resist  them,  —  a  sufficient  indication  how 
dependent  on  the  Romans  the  Jewish  state  already 
was.  Meanwhile,  Antipater's  influence  was  on  the 
increase,  especially  during  the  civil  war  between . 
Pompey  and  Caesar,  which  prevented  the  Romans 
from  troubling  themselves  so  much  with  Jewish  affairs. 
Being  a  foreigner,  however,  he  failed  to  gain  the 
affections  of  the  people,  and  after  his  death,  which 
took  place  in  the  year  43,  Antigonus,  the  son  of  Aris- 
tobulus, ventured  upon  a  fresh  attempt  to  get  the 
mastery.  Herod,  the  son  of  Antipater,  who  had  mar- 
ried Mariamne,  the  grand-daughter  of  Hyrcanus, 
tried  to  maintain  himself  in  his  father's  position,  but 
was  obliged  to  fly  before  his  foe,  who  took  Jerusalem 
in  the  year  40  before  Christ.  Herod  sought  help  at 
Rome,  and  the  Roman  Senate  acknowledged  him 
king  of  the  Jews.  On  his  return  to  Judaea,  he  was 
enabled,  by  the  help  of  the  Romans,  to  bring  his 
struggle  with  his  rival  to  a  successful  issue.  He  took 
Jerusalem,  and  Antigonus  was  killed  in  the  year  37 
before  Christ. 

Herod,  surnamed  the  Great,  had  a  prosperous 
reign  and  gained  considerable  distinction  for  his 
kingdom.  At  Jerusalem  he  built  a  new  temple 
instead  of  the  existing  one,  of  surpassing  beauty  and 


208  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

splendor.  He  always  strove  to  further  the  interests 
of  his  subjects,  that  he  might,  if  possible,  win  their 
attachment.  But  in  this  he  was  not  successful ;  the 
Jews  hated  him,  not  only  because  he  was  a  foreigner, 
but  because  he  was  guilty  of  many  cruelties.  He 
died  in  the  year  4  before  Christ. 

His  three  sons  succeeded  him  —  Archelaus  in 
Judaea,  Herod  Antipas  in  Galilee,  and  Philip  in  the 
region  beyond  Jordan.  Archelaus  was  deposed  as 
early  as  the  year  6  after  Christ,  and  Judaea  was 
incorporated  in  the  Roman  empire.  Herod  Antipas 
lost  his  crown  in  the  year  39  A.D.,  and  was  banished. 
Philip  died  in  the  year  34  A.D.  Judaea  passed  under 
the  rule  of  the  governor  of  Syria,  who  stationed  a 
subordinate  officer  at  Caesarea,  under  the  title  of 
procurator,  to  govern  Judaea.  Pontius  Pilate,  who 
was  at  the  head  of  Judaea  from  26  to  37  A.D.,  held 
this  office.  But  after  his  time  Judaea  was  again 
amalgamated  entirely  with  Syria. 

In  the  year  41  A.D.,  Palestine  once  more  obtained 
a  prince  of  its  own.  Herod  Agrippa  the  First, 
grandson  of  Herod  the  Great,  who  had  become 
prince  of  the  region  beyond  Jordan  as  far  back  as 
the  year  37  A.D.,  and  of  Galilee  in  40,  now  received 
from  the  Roman  Emperor,  Claudius,  dominion  over 
Judaea  in  addition.  His  reign  was  not  without  merit, 
but  it  lasted  a  short  while  only,  for  he  died  in  the  year 
44  A.D.  From  that  time  Palestine  remained  under 
the  rule  of  the  Roman  governors.  It  is  true,  indeed, 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.  209 

that  Herod's  son,  Herod  Agrippa  the  Second,  enjoyed 
some  authority,  but  it  was  inconsiderable.  The  Jews 
found  themselves  virtually  under  the  immediate 
dominion  of  the  Romans.  This,  however,  they  could 
not  bring  themselves  to  endure.  Revolts  broke  out 
ever  and  anon,  till,  in  66  A.D.,  a  general  rebellion 
burst  forth,  all  Romans  were  put  to  death,  and  the 
final  war  was  begun.  Though  the  Jews  fought  with 
much  good  fortune  at  first,  they  were  naturally  unable 
to  maintain  the  unequal  strife.  Vespasian  was 
entrusted  with  the  conduct  of  the  war  by  Nero ;  and 
when  he  himself  was  summoned  to  the  imperial 
throne,  his  son,  Titus  Vespasian,  carried  on  the  war 
to  its  conclusion.  In  the  year  70  A.D.,  Jerusalem  was 
taken  and  the  temple  was  burnt.  The  Jewish  State 
had  for  ever  ceased  to  be. 

And  now  that  we  have  glanced  at  the  condition  in 
which  Israel  found  itself  politically  during  the  final 
period  of  its  national  existence,  we  are  once  more  in 
apposition  to  give  undivided  attention  to  what  took 
place  in  the  sphere  of  religion.  We  have  already 
made  acquaintance  with  the  scribes  and  their  work 
during  the  age  succeeding  Ezra,  and  acquired  some 
notion  of  the  priestly  legislation  and  the  oral  tradition 
by  means  of  which  it  was  interpreted  and  amplified. 
The  scribes  carried  on  their  work  in  the  same  spirit 
under  the  rule  of  Alexander  the  Great  and  his 
successors.  The  people  were  more  and  more  affected 
27 


2io  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

by  their  influence,  and  the  Law  became  the  guiding 
principle  by  which  the  pious  Israelite  decided  what 
he  should  do  and  what  he  should  not  do.  At  the 
same  time,  the  tradition  was  continually  undergoing 
amplification  to  meet  contemporary  needs  ;  and  many 
of  the  psalms  in  our  collection  date  from  the  period 
we  are  discussing.  The  Book  of  Chronicles,  which 
was  written  about  250  years  before  Christ,  is  particu- 
larly important  in  indicating  the  spiritual  and  intel- 
lectual tendencies  of  the  day.  It  was  originally  % 
united  in  one  work  with  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  —  not 
that  the  whole  came  from  one  pen ;  only,  one  author 
gathered  together  the  existing  records  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  into  a  more  extended  work  under  his  own 
hand.  This  author  treads  in  Ezra's  footsteps,  and, 
indeed,  goes  still  further  than  he  did.  He  gives  an 
account  in  his  book  of  the  history  of  Israel,  but 
supplements  or  amends  the  ancient  narratives  as  he 
pleases.  He  ascribes  his  own  opinions  to  the  ancients, 
making  David,  for  instance,  project  the  organization 
of  the  priests  and  Levites,  though  it  was  only  finally 
settled  in  his  own  day.  He  describes  festivals  and 
ceremonies  in  the  way  in  which  they  were  kept  in  his 
own  times,  while  pushing  them  back  for  centuries  by 
way  of  endowing  them  with  the  authority  of  antiquity. 
Thus,  he  permits  himself  great  liberties  in  his  treat- 
ment of  history,  but  it  is  with  the  distinct  purpose  of 
bringing  into  relief  the  excellence  of  the  Law,  of  the 
priestly  services,  and  of  the  sacrifices.  And  he  is 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.  2 1 1 

further  distinguished  from  his  predecessors  by  his 
endeavor  to  identify  piety  with  a  reverence  for  the 
priests  and  Levites.  He  is  thoroughly  hierarchical  in 
his  temper,  standing  in  this  respect  below  the  majority 
of  the  scribes,  since  they  never  allowed  themselves 
to  be  swayed  by  selfishness.  Then,  again,  he  pays 
extraordinary  attention  to  the  singers  and  the  porters, 
whom  he  includes  among  the  Levites,  and  affiliates 
to  the  tribe  of  Levi  by  means  of  fictitious  genealogies. 
All  this  shows  that,  even  in  the  middle  of  the  third 
century  before  Christ,  no  divine  authority  was 
attributed  to  the  old  historical  books,  and  people  did 
not  shrink  from  making  important  alterations  in  them. 

To  this  period,  too,  belongs  the  introduction  of  the 
feast  of  Purim,  which  we  have  already  mentioned  in 
discussing  the  Book  of  Esther.  The  successful  issue 
of  the  efforts  made  by  the  author  of  Esther,  in  his 
desire  to  see  this  festival  observed  universally  by  the 
Israelites,  shows  us,  in  the  same  way,  that  there  was 
still  a  sufficient  measure  of  freedom  to  render  possi- 
ble the  introduction  of  new  regulations  and  usages. 

We  now  approach  that  momentous  era  when  the 
spirit  of  Greek  civilization  began  to  make  itself  felt 
even  in  Israel.  Alexander  had  brought  it  into  Asia, 
and  in  the  long  run  Israel  could  not  escape  its  influ- 
ence. We  have  to  inquire,  then,  whether  Yahwism 
managed  to  hold  its  ground  against  the  power  of  that 
foreign  civilization. 

At  first  it  seemed  as  if  Yahwism  must  succumb. 


212  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

We  have  already  made  acquaintance  with  the  Preacher, 
who  could  not  sympathize  with  the  movement  of  the 
scribes,  and  took  too  large  a  view  to  feel  quite  at 
home  in  the  narrow  circle  of  ideas  which  constituted 
Judaism.  For  his  mind  the  spirit  of  the  Greeks 
could  offer  no  escape,  but  he  had  not  long  been  dead 
before  many  distinguished  Israelites  showed  a  strong 
inclination  to  participate  in  the  privileges  of  that 
foreign  civilization.  In  the  year  174  before  Christ, 
Joshua,  the  brother  of  the  high-priest,  Onias  the  Third, 
found  means  to  bribe  King  Antiochus  Epiphanes  to 
transfer  the  office  to  him.  This  Joshua  was  a  friend 
of  the  Greeks.  He  established  a  gymnasium  in  the 
capital.  Numbers  of  men,  and  some  priests  among 
them,  took  part  in  the  athletic  exercises  which  were 
held  there,  to  the  great  scandal,  we  need  hardly  say, 
of  the  pious  Israelites  who  were  attached  to  the 
Law.  But  Joshua  was  in  a  short  time  supplanted  by 
Menelaus,  who  had  made  a  still  higher  bid  to  Antio- 
chus for  the  office  of  high-priest.  From  that  mo- 
ment, there  arose  the  most  violent  conflicts  between 
the  two  rivals,  and  Antiochus  seized  the  opportunity 
to  march  against  Jerusalem  himself  with  a  view  of 
chastising  it.  The  city  and  the  temple  were  taken  in 
the  year  169  before  Christ,  and  the  king  plundered 
the  temple  of  its  sacred  vessels.  But  this  was  only 
the  beginning  of  the  misery  which  overtook  the 
Jews.  Stimulated  by  fresh  dissensions  which  arose 
among  them,  Antiochus,  two  years  afterwards,  resolved 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.   213 

to  visit  them  with  still  heavier  punishment.  He  once 
more  entered  the  capital,  put  many  of  the  inhabitants 
to  death,  and  established  a  garrison  of  his  own 
troops  in  a  fortress  which  he  erected  adjacent  to  it. 
At  the  same  time  the  temple  was  dissociated  from 
the  worship  of  Yahweh,  and  on  the  great  altar  a 
smaller  one  was  set  up,  probably  in  honor  of  Jupiter 
Capitolinus,  a  god  with  whom  Antiochus  had  been 
made  acquainted  through  the  Romans,  and  whom  he 
identified  with  the  Greek  Zeus.  Orders  were  also 
given  that  the  Jews  should  hold  no  more  Sabbaths, 
and  keep  no  more  festivals,  and  they  were  to  leave 
off  setting  themselves  against  the  use  of  the  flesh  of 
unclean  animals.  It  was  in  December,  167  before 
Christ,  that  the  first  sacrifice  to  the  strange  god  was 
kindled  in  the  ancient  sanctuary  of  Yahweh. 

There  were  great  numbers  of  Jews  who  were  well 
enough  pleased  at  these  doings  on  the  part  of  the 
Greek  prince,  and  showed  themselves  quite  ready  to 
do  as  he  bid;  and  the  king  himself  seems  to  have 
supposed  at  first  that  he  should  not  meet  with  any 
serious  resistance.  It  was  not  he,  but  the  high-priest 
himself,  that  had  set  the  movement  on  foot,  so  that 
he  naturally  concluded  that  the  action  with  which  he 
had  followed  it  up  would  gain  approval,  especially 
from  men  of  distinction.  He  was  soon  to  learn, 
however,  that  he  had  under-estimated  the  strength  of 
Yahwism.  When  he  met  with  resistance  he  thought 
to  carry  out  his  intentions  by  force ;  and  hence  arose 


214  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

the  fierce  struggle  of  Judaism  against  the  genius  of 
Grecian  civilization. 

Our  chief  authority  for  the  history  of  this  revolt  is 
the  first  and  second  Books  of  Maccabees.  They  tell 
us  of  splendid  instances  of  loyalty  to  Yahweh  and 
fidelity  to  the  Law.  The  blood  of  martyrs  flowed 
till,  at  last,  the  strain  was  so  great  that  rebellion 
broke  out  at  Modin,  not  far  from  Jerusalem.  The 
servants  of  Antiochus  visited  that  place,  as  they  had 
visited  others,  to  see  the  king's  orders  carried  out. 
They  set  up  an  altar,  and  bade  a  priest  named 
Mattathias,  who  lived  there,  make  an  offering  upon 
it.  On  his  refusal,  a  Jew  came  forward  to  make  an 
offering,  but  Mattathias  fell  upon  him  and  killed  him. 
This  was  the  signal  for  revolt.  The  foreigners  were 
slain,  and  Mattathias  fled  to  the  wilderness  with  his 
five  sons.  They  were  speedily  followed  by  many  of 
the  faithful.  The  venerable  priest  himself  only  sur- 
vived to  the  following  year  (166  before  Christ),  but 
he  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Judas  Maccabaeus,  with 
whom  the  reader  is  already  acquainted.  In  a  series 
of  battles  and  skirmishes  he  was  constantly  victorious 
over  the  troops  which  Antiochus  sent  against  him, 
and  as  early  as  the  year  164  before  Christ,  he  was 
strong  enough  to  march  upon  Jerusalem,  take  posses- 
sion of  the  city,  and  purify  the  temple.  On  the  very 
day  on  which,  three  years  before,  the  first  offering 
had  been  made  to  the  god  of  the  heathen,  he  was 
able  to  kindle  sacrifice  to  Yahweh,  the  god  of  his 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.  215 

fathers,  on  a  new  altar  for  burnt-offerings.  From  that 
time  forward,  it  was  an  established  custom  in  Israel 
to  celebrate  that  blessed  event  every  year ;  and  it  was 
called  the  "Feast  of  the  Renewal  of  the  Temple,"  or 
"of  Lights."  The  terrible  struggle  had  resulted  in 
victory.  Yahwism  stood  more  firmly  than  ever,  hal- 
lowed by  the  blood  of  the  martyrs. 

A  note-worthy  book  has  been  preserved  to  us  in 
the  literature  of  the  Jews,  dating  from  this  period, 
written  with  the  object  of  confirming  the  pious  in 
their  vehement  conflict  with  Antiochus.  We  allude 
to  the  Book  of  Daniel.  The  author  is  not  known  to 
us,  but  he  speaks  in  the  name  of  Daniel,  a  man  of 
the  time  of  the  Babylonish  captivity,  famous  for  piety 
and  wisdom.  He  represents  Daniel  as  prophesying 
of  the  days  to  come,  and  he  makes  him  predict  every- 
thing which  he  knew  to  have  happened,  and  every- 
thing which  he  wished  to  happen  in  the  future.  He 
starts  from  the  oracle  in  Jeremiah,  to  the  effect  that 
after  seventy  years  Yahweh  would  put  an  end  to 
Israel's  misery  and  woes.  That  prophecy  had  not 
been  fulfilled ;  but  our  author  assumes  that  the  period 
stated  by  the  prophet  of  old  is  to  be  interpreted  other- 
wise, and  that  he  had  not  meant  ordinary  years,  but 
Sabbath-years,  consisting  of  seven  years  apiece,  so  as 
to  make  490  years  altogether.  If  his  readers  based 
their  calculations  on  this  assumption,  they  would  see 
that  the  year  in  which  Yahweh's  temple  was  defiled  — 


216  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

167  before  Christ  —  fell  just  in  the  middle  of  the  last 
week  of  years.  At  the  end  of  that  time  deliverance 
would  come.  So  the  pious  must  stand  firm,  and  hold 
fast  their  trust  in  Yahweh.  By  way  of  enforcing  this 
lesson,  our  author  tells  how  Daniel  and  his  three 
friends  remained  steadfast  amid  trials  yet  more  ter- 
rible, and  how  Yahweh  saved  them  out  of  the  fiery 
furnace  and  out  of  the  lions'  den,  into  which  they 
had  been  cast.  God  would  punish  Antiochus  as  he 
had  punished  Nebuchadrezzar,  who  was  changed  into 
an  ox,  or  Belshazzar,  who,  having  desecrated  the 
sacred  vessels  of  the  temple,  forfeited  his  life  as  the 
price  of  that  heinous  crime.  The  pious,  then,  had 
only  to  put  their  confidence  in  their  god,  who  was 
mighty  to  save  them  as  well. 

Our  author  describes  in  detail  the  future  which  he 
expects.  After  the  last  week  of  days  comes  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead.  The  pious  shall  live  for 
ever.  Then  shall  God's  chosen  ones  exercise  lord- 
ship upon  the  earth.  Hitherto  the  heathen  had  ruled ; 
four  kingdoms  had  arisen  one  after  the  other  —  those 
of  the  Chaldeans,  the  Medes,  the  Persians,  and  the 
Greeks.  In  the  mouth  of  Daniel  all  this  was  made  a 
prophecy,  although  for  the  author  himself  it  belonged 
to  the  past.  To  the  kingdom  of  the  Greeks  belongs 
Antiochus,  who  is,  of  course,  drawn  in  the.  darkest 
colors.  But  now  the  end  is  at  hand.  God,  who  is 
here  called  the  Ancient  of  Days,  seats  himself  on  his 
throne  and  holds  his  judgment.  The  kingdom  of  the 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.  217 

Greeks,  represented  in  the  likeness  of  an  animal,  is 
brought  to  naught.  Thereupon  one  like  to  a  son  of 
man  draws  near  to  the  throne  of  God  amid  the  clouds 
of  heaven,  and  dominion  and  power  are  bestowed  on 
him  for  ever.  This  son  of  man  is  the  image  or  repre- 
sentative of  Israel,  which  is  here  called  "the  people 
of  the  saints  of  the  Most  High."  Israel,  exalted 
far  above  the  .heathen,  shall  have  dominion  for  ever. 
This  book  had  very  great  influence,  first  and  fore- 
most, on  the  writer's  contemporaries;  and,  in  the 
second  place,  as  the  first  example  of  a  new  species  of 
literature,  known  as  "apocalyptic."  From  that  time 
forward,  many  writers  felt  themselves  stirred  up  to 
follow  in  the  footsteps  of  the  author  of  Daniel,  and  to 
put  into  the  mouths  of  the  pious  of  old  such  thoughts 
of  their  own  as  they  desired  to  express.  Prophecy 
was  interpreted  as  a  mechanical  revelation  from  God, 
and  it  was  represented  that  God  had  given  sundry 
revelations  concerning  the  future  to  Enoch,  Moses, 
Ezra,  and  even  the  heathen  Sibyl,  and  that  they  had 
reduced  them  to  writing.  Hence  the  word  "  apoca- 
lyptic," from  apocalypsis,  a  revelation  or  unveiling. 
The  last  book  in  the  new  Testament,  too,  is  of  the 
same  character,  and  contains  predictions  of  the  same 
sort  about  the  days  to  come.  It  is  easy  to  see  that 
this  kind  of  writings,  however  much  prized  by  the 
pious,  was  no  true  outcome  of  the  ancient  and  genuine 
spirit  of  prophecy;  and  it  will  be  understood  how 
28 


218  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

naturally  such  books  led  to  an  absorption  in  the 
future  that  was  utterly  idle. 

The  reader  is  already  aware,  from  what  has  been 
said  above,  that  the  fair  hopes  which  the  author  of 
Daniel  entertained  and  awakened  in  the  bosoms  of 
others  were  not  fulfilled.  True,  the  temple  was  once 
more  purified,  and  the  Jews  were  even  enabled  once 
more  to  boast  their  independence  ;  but  their  kingdom 
never  again  grew  great  and  powerful,  and  still  less 
were  they  ever  to  rule  over  the  heathen.  Nay,  there 
broke  out  a  new  struggle,  this  time  among  the  Israel- 
ites themselves,  a  struggle  the  germ  of  which  had 
long  been  there,  though  it  was  only  now  that  its 
dangerous  character  appeared.  We  allude  to  the 
struggle  between  the  party  of  the  Sadducees  and  that 
of  the  Pharisees,  and  it  is  to  it  that  we  must  now 
devote  our  attention. 

Even  before  the  struggle  with  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
there  were  two  parties  among  the  Jews.  On  one  side 
was  the  high-priest,  together  with  the  priestly  families 
and  others  of  distinction ;  on  the  other  side  was  the 
great  body  of  the  people.  The  high-priest  had  at 
his  side  a  council  of  elders,  called  the  "  Gerusia," 
and  probably  composed  of  the  heads  of  the  leading 
families.  At  first,  the  scribes  were  by  no  means 
hostile  to  them,  but  in  the  course  of  time  their  good- 
will gave  way  to  other  sentiments.  The  priests, 
who  composed  the  ruling  party,  came  into  frequent 
contact  with  foreigners,  and  were  ready  to  accommo- 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.  219 

date  themselves  to  them  as  often  as  it  seemed 
necessary.  The  scribes,  on  the  other  hand,  had 
nothing  to  do  with  such  considerations,  and  were 
bent  simply  on  the  strenuous  maintenance  of  the 
Law.  By  degrees  they  began  to  draw  off  from  the 
priests  and  to  act  in  opposition  to  them ;  and  the 
people  sided  with  them,  partly  out  of  sympathy  with 
their  aims  and  partly  out  of  dislike  to  the  aristocracy. 

Now,  when  Joshua,  as  high-priest,  sought  to  intro- 
duce the  manners  of  the  Greeks,  the  popular  respect 
for  the  priestly  party  naturally  received  a  severe 
shock ;  and  during  the  revolt  it  was  utterly  destroyed, 
while  the  scribes,  who  distinguished  themselves  by 
their  loyalty  to  the  Law,  won  the  highest  regard. 
The  Asmonasans  made  common  cause  with  them,  so 
that  the  conflict  between  them  was  for  a  time  in 
abeyance.  But  it  was  only  for  a  time ;  for  the 
Asmonaeans,  actuated  by  the  same  principles  as  the 
old  aristocracy,  gradually  grew  nearer  to  the  latter, 
while  the  scribes  again  drew  off  and  once  more 
sought  and  found  support  at  the  hands  of  the  people. 

These  two  parties  received  the  names  of  "  Saddu- 
cees "  and  "  Pharisees."  The  derivation  of  neither 
word  is  certain.  The  former  means  "  Followers  of 
Zadok,"  probably  some  distinguished  man  of  the 
day,  who  gave  his  name  to  his  party.  The  word 
"  Pharisee  "  signifies  separated,  but  we  do  not  know 
how  the  party  came  by  that  name.  Probably  it  was 
that,  in  order  to  be  the  better  able  to  obey  the  pre- 


22O  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

cepts  of  the  law,  they  separated  themselves  from  the 
masses,  who  could  not  possibly  keep  all  the  commands 
of  the  Law  so  strictly.  The  Sadducees  constituted 
a  definite  rank  in  society,  being  the  aristocracy;  but 
any  one  could  be  a  Pharisee,  no  matter  what  his 
social  position  might  be,  if  only  he  agreed  in  the 
principles  of  the  party.  The  majority  of  the  scribes 
belonged  to  the  Pharisees,  and  so  did  a  few  of  the 
priests. 

The  differences  between  the  two  parties  did  not 
lead  to  any  open  rupture  during  the  government  of 
Judas,  Jonathan,  or  Simon ;  for  these  princes,  having 
acquired  their  authority  during  the  revolt,  could  not 
but  be  favorably  disposed  towards  the  Pharisees. 
But  under  John  Hyrcanus  things  underwent  a  change. 
According  to  Flavius  Josephus,  it  was  quite  an 
insignificant  occasion  that  led  to  the  breaking  out  of 
hostilities.  But  the  real  cause  lay  deeper ;  sooner  or 
later  the  principles  of  the  two  parties  could  not  but 
show  themselves  in  violent  disagreement.  And  though 
Hyrcanus  might  pay  respect  to  the  Pharisees  at  first, 
it  could  not  last;  and  he  entered  into  closer  and 
closer  alliance  with  his  natural  friends  and  sympa- 
thizers, the  Sadducees. 

Under  Alexander  Jannasus,  it  came  to  actual  civil 
war.  Josephus  tells  us  that  50,000  Pharisees  perished. 
But  so  deeply  was  the  prince  impressed  with  their 
power  and  the  popular  support  which  they  enjoyed, 
that  on  his  death-bed  he  advised  his  wife,  Alexandra, 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.  221 

to  go  over  to  the  enemy ;  and,  for  the  sake  of  peace 
and  quiet,  she  did  so,  and  that,  too,  with  much 
success,  though  her  son,  Aristobulus,  declared  himself 
against  her.  In  the  wars  which  followed,  on  her 
decease,  between  Aristobulus  and  his  brother,  Hyr- 
canus  the  Second,  the  Pharisees  did  not,  as  a  rule, 
take  either  side. 

With  regard  to  the  religious  opinions  of  the  two 
parties  and  their  controversies,  a  few  words  will  be 
enough.  The  Sadducees  were  the  aristocracy.  They 
were  a  political  party,  and  so  we  can  only  speak  of 
their  religious  opinions  so  far  as  they  were  the  result 
of  their  political  principles.  They  were  the  con- 
servatives. They  systematically  opposed  all  the 
novelties  which  the  Pharisees  wanted  to  introduce; 
they  held  by  the  Law  and  whatever  had  been  estab- 
lished by  the  Great  Synagogue  in  accordance  with  the 
decisions  of  oral  tradition.  It  was  formerly  supposed 
that  they  rejected  the  latter,  only  acknowledging  and 
accepting  the  Law  among  Israel's  religious  books, 
and  not  the  prophets  and  the  other  writings.  But 
this  is  a  mistake.  In  this  respect  they  agreed  with 
their  opponents.  But  they  stood  by  what  already 
existed,  and  did  not  want  to  see  anything  added  to  it. 
And  so  they  did  not  believe  in  immortality,  or  in 
angels  or  evil  spirits.  For  such  doctrines  were  com- 
paratively new,  and  so  recent  a  writer  as  the  Preacher 
controverted  the  belief  in  everlasting  life,  while  Jesus 
Sirach  did  not  even  mention  it.  No  wonder  then, 


222  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

that  the  Sadducees,  true  to  their  principles,  declined 
to  accept  it. 

The  Pharisees  constituted  the  popular  party,  prop- 
erly so  called.  They  were  anything  but  conservatives, 
and  did  not  shrink  from  new  commandments  more 
onerous  than  those  of  old,  so  iong  as  they  helped 
them  towards  their  ends.  In  one  point  of  view  they 
were  thus  more  liberal  than  the  Sadducees,  and  that 
too,  because  they  were  more  earnestly  attached  to  the 
Law.  They  had  a  genuine  love  tor  that  Law,  and  so 
they  ventured  to  modify  the  injunctions  of  Moses  as 
they  thought  desirable.  In  the  estimation  of  the 
multitude,  they  were  the  pious  par  excellence;  and 
although,  especially  in  later  times,  dissemblers  and 
hypocrites  were  to  be  found  among  the  members  of 
their  party,  this  was  not  the  case  at  first  or  with  the 
majority.  They  were  the  true  friends  of  Yahwism, 
the  inheritors  of  the  spirit  of  Ezra. 

The  scribes  were  their  leaders  from  the  first.  The 
most  distinguished  of  them  stood  at  their  head,  and 
they  are  always  mentioned  in  pairs.  Hillel  and 
Shammai  are  the  best  known  pair.  They  were  at  the 
head  of  the  scribes  of  Jerusalem,  and  it  was  their  duty 
to  propagate  the  oral  law ;  probably  they  also  had 
seats  in  the  council  of  priests  called  the  Sanhedrin. 
There  they  would  come  into  conflict  with  the  aristoc- 
racy, and,  though  they  were  in  a  minority,  their 
position  as  leaders  of  the  powerful  popular  party  gave 
them  great  influence  there. 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.  223 

We  should  be  guilty  of  a  grave  omission  if  we  said 
nothing  about  the  Essenes,  a  third  party  in  Israel,  or 
rather  a  religious  order,  who  troubled  themselves 
little  about  the  rest  of  the  Jews.  They  had  no  influ- 
ence worth  mentioning  on  the  growth  and  progress  of 
religion  in  Israel ;  but  they  constitute  in  themselves 
a  phenomenon  so  important  that  we  cannot  pass  them 
by  in  silence. 

The  origin  of  the  sect  of  the  Essenes  is  buried  in 
"  obscurity.  But  in  all  probability  it  is  to  be  sought  in 
those  "pious"  men  who  were  the  most  strenuous  in 
resisting  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  after  the  revolt 
carried  out  the  precepts  of  the  Law  with  the  utmost 
possible  stringency.  The  Essenes,  the  signification 
of  whose  name  is  not  known,  would  seem  from  that 
time  forward  to  have  separated  themselves  more  and 
more  from  the  unclean,  and  ere  long  to  have  with- 
drawn from  the  towns  and  cities,  where  their  inter- 
course with  others  made  it  almost  impossible  for  them 
to  keep  the  Law.  At  any  rate,  the  accounts  which 
have  come  down  to  us  place  them  in  remote  villages 
in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Dead  Sea.  Their  mode 
of  life  was  minutely  prescribed  :  prayers  were  to  be  said 
before  sunrise,  and  then  they  were  to  work  till  eleven 
o'clock.  Then  they  had  to  take  a  bath,  put  on  the 
white  linen  dress  of  their  order,  and  partake  of  the 
common  meal,  at  which  there  were  prayer  and  sing- 
ing. They  abstained  from  meat  and  wrine ;  when  the 
meal  was  over,  they  betook  themselves  to  work  again 
until  evening. 


224  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

They  took  no  part  in  the  temple  sacrifices,  but  in 
every  other  respect  they  were  scrupulously  obedient 
to  the  Law,  especially  in  keeping  the  Sabbath,  which 
they  passed  in  absolute  rest.  Novices  were  received 
into  the  order  after  three  years'  probation  ;  but  they 
had  first  to  take  a  solemn  vow  that  they  would  keep 
the  Law,  be  clean  and  holy  in  their  lives,  and  strictly 
preserve  the  books  of  the  sect  and  the  names  of  the 
angels.  We  are  not  informed  what  the  last  phrase 
meant.  The  stricter  Essenes  abstained  from  mar-* 
riage  ;  but  some  married  and  lived  like  other  people  ; 
these,  however,  were  not  admitted  to  the  colonies  of 
the  strict  members  of  the  order.  They  had  their 
goods  in  common,  and  on  entering  the  order  put  all 
their  possessions  into  the  common  treasury.  The 
government  was  committed  to  leaders  elected  by  the 
body  at  large,  to  whom  every  one  owed  obedience. 

At  the  first  glance  it  seems  strange  that  such  a  sect 
should  have  had  its  birth  among  the  Jews,  and,  in 
fact,  many  have  supposed  that  it  must  have  been  of 
foreign  origin.  Josephus  tries  to  show  their  agree- 
ment with  the  Pythagoreans ;  but  he  is  evidently  not 
to  be  trusted  in  the  matter,  inasmuch  as  he  is  bent 
upon  persuading  the  Greeks  and  Romans  that  Israel 
too,  has  its  sects  of  philosophers,  just  as  much  as  any 
other  people.  That  the  Essenes  were  Jews  is  put 
beyond  all  dispute  by  their  exaggerated  regard  for 
the  Law.  Their  abstinence,  too,  their  strict  asceti- 
cism, however  much  opposed  to  the  ancient  ideas  of 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.     225 

Israel,  which  recognized  in  a  prosperous  and  joyous 
life,  the  blessing  of  Yahweh,  is  easily  explained  from 
the  principles  of  a  subsequent  age;  and  even  in 
ancient  times  abstinence  from  wine  is  to  be  found.* 
Moreover,  in  the  priestly  legislation,  the  consumption 
of  meat  containing  blood  was  prohibited ;  and  it  was 
going  only  one  step  further  to  abstain  from  meat 
altogether ;  and  with  this  is  connected  the  fact  of  , 
their  taking  no  part  in  the  sacrificial  festivals  at  the 
temple  of  Jerusalem,  or,  indeed,  in  the  sacrifices 
themselves.  Then,  again,  their  dread  of  pollution 
and  their  exaggerated  anxiety  to  keep  themselves 
separate,  may  be  explained  quite  simply  from  their 
attachment  to  the  Law,  which  was  continually  laying 
more  and  more  stress  upon  cleanness.  And  so, 
though  the  peculiarities  of  Essenism  are  not  all 
thoroughly  explained,  its  Jewish  origin  is  established 
beyond  all  question. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

THE    SAME    CONTINUED. 

TF  the  reader  is  to  be  acquainted  with  the  condition 

of  religion  among  the  Jewish  nation  in  the  last 

century  of  its  existence,  we  must  not  omit  to  speak 

*  See  page  66. 
29 


226  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

of  the  Jews  outside  Palestine.  There  were  great  num- 
bers of  such  Jews.  As  we  have  seen  already,  many 
stayed  behind  in  Babylon  even  after  the  days  of  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah;  and  from  Babylon  as  a  centre  they 
spread  into  other  regions,  and  during  the  dominion  of 
the  Greeks  many  Jews  moved  from  Palestine  to 
Damascus,  to  Antioch,  and  afterwards  to  the  chief 
cities  of  Asia  Minor.  Before  long,  they  passed  into 
Europe  and  established  themselves  in  Macedonia  and 
Greece,  as  well  as  on  the  islands ;  while  as  early  as 
the  middle  of  the  second  century  before  Christ,  they 
were  to  be  found  even  at  Rome. 

They  took  up  their  abode,  however,  in  Egypt  in 
larger  numbers  than  elsewhere,  especially  at  Alex- 
andria, the  celebrated  commercial  city  founded  by 
Alexander  the  Great.  Some  of  them  came  there  of 
their  own  accord,  others  were  carried  there  captive 
by  Ptolemy.  Their  number  was  very  considerable, 
and  no  small  part  of  Alexandria  was  inhabited  exclu- 
sively by  them.  A  good  many  too,  were  to  be  found 
in  Cyrene,  in  Nubia,  and  in  ^Ethiopia. 

We  have  seen  above  that  the  Babylonian  Jews  had 
not  lost  their  interest  in  the  religion  of  their  fathers  ; 
and  this  continued  to  be  the  case,  not  only  with  them, 
but  with  all  the  Jews  who  were  scattered  abroad. 
They  had  been  much  influenced  by  the  thoughts  and 
feelings  of  the  scribes,  and  had  thus  imbibed  a  deep 
affection  for  Yahwism.  Moreover,  there  were  suffi- 
cient numbers  of  them  everywhere  to  form  congrega- 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.  227 

tions  and  to  found  synagogues.  They  were  so  pro- 
foundly conscious  of  the  difference  between  their  own 
religion  and  that  of  the  alien  peoples  among  whom 
they  dwelt,  that  they  felt  no  difficulty  in  preserving 
their  independence ;  moreover,  they  kept  up  commu- 
nication with  their  countrymen  at  home,  sent  their 
gifts  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  every  year,  and  went 
there  to  keep  the  great  annual  festivals  whenever 
they  possibly  could. 

The  influence  of  these  Jews  upon  the  peoples 
among  whom  they  were  settled  was  very  great.  Were 
we  studying  the  spread  of  Christianity,  we  should  see 
how  much  the  progress  of  that  religion  was  forwarded 
by  the  fact  that  there  were  Jewish  congregations 
everywhere.  We  need  only  remark  here,  that  when 
the  heathens  came  into  contact  with  the  Jews,  they 
made  acquaintance  with  Judaism  and  learnt  to  regard 
it  with  interest.  Perhaps  the  very  contrast  between 
the  system  of  the  Jews  and  that  of  the  heathens 
inclined  many  towards  the  former,  at  any  rate  num- 
bers of  heathens  joined  the  ranks  of  the  servants  of 
Yahweh.  These  converts  were  called  "  Proselytes." 
They  were  of  two  kinds,  "  Proselytes  of  Righteous- 
ness" and  "Proselytes  of  the  Gate."  The  former 
observed  the  whole  of  the  Jewish  Law,  just  like  the 
Jews  themselves ;  the  latter,  who  perhaps  derived 
their  name  from  the  fact  that  they  did  not  take  their 
place  in  the  synagogue  among  the  believers,  but 
stayed  in  a  separate  part  near  the  entrance  or  gate, 


228  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

did  not  submit  themselves  to  the  whole  law,  but  only 
observed  a  few  commandments ;  they  were  not  to 
take  the  name  of  Yahweh  in  vain,  or  to  worship 
idols,  or  to  eat  things  containing  blood,  or  to  work 
on  the  Sabbath,  and  during  the  feast  of  the  Passover 
they  were  to  use  unleavened  bread.  The  first  three 
of  these  commandments  are  called  the  "  Noachic 
Commandments,"  after  Noah,  because  they  were 
considered  as  binding  upon  all  men,  unlike  the 
Mosaic  commandments,  which  were  given  to  Israel 
only. 

If  the  Jews  thus  exercised  an  important  influence 
on  the  heathen,  Judaism  outside  Palestine,  in  its 
turn,  felt  in  no  small  measure  the  power  of  the  Greek 
civilization.  And  this  was  the  case  in  Alexandria 
more  than  anywhere  else.  This  city  was  not  only  a 
great  centre  of  trade  where  men  were  gathered 
together  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  but  it  was  also 
a  centre  of  art  and  culture  and  philosophy.  The 
Greek  Kings  of  Egypt  did  all  they  could  to  further 
the  interests  of  knowledge,  and  amongst  other  things, 
they  established  a  library,  which  was  the  finest  in  the 
whole  ancient  world.  In  such  a  city,  then,  the  Jews 
could  not  help  coming  into  contact  with  the  Greek 
civilization,  imbibing  its  spirit,  and  harmonizing  it,  as 
far  as  possible,  with  their  religious  belief.  The  form 
of  thought  which  thus  came  into  being,  the  union  of 
the  philosophy  of  Greece  with  the  spirit  of  Judaism, 
is  called  "  Hellenism/'  just  as,  in  the  New  Testament, 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.  229 

the  Jews  in  foreign  lands  who  had  forgotten  their 
mother  tongue  and  spoke  Greek,  are  called  "  Hellen- 
ists," in  contradistinction  to  the  Hebrews,  who  used 
their  national  dialect,  which,  however,  was  not 
Hebrew,  but  the  kindred  Aramaic. 

It  was  in  Alexandria  that  the  celebrated  Greek 
version,  first  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  and  afterwards  of 
the  whole  Old  Testament,  arose.  It  was  natural 
enough  that  the  Jews  who  dwelt  there  should  strongly 
feel  the  want  of  such  a  translation.  It  was  probably 
prepared  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century 
before  Christ.  This,  however,  is  not  certain ;  it  is 
true,  there  are  a  number  of  stories  about  its  origin, 
but  we  cannot  place  any  reliance  on  them,  inasmuch 
as  they  are  obviously  due  simply  to  the  endeavor  to 
exalt  the  value  and  authority  of  the  version  in 
question.  It  was  related  and  for  centuries  believed, 
for  example,  that  Ptolemy  II.  sent  an  embassy  to 
Jerusalem  to  request  the  high-priest  to  send  him 
seventy-two  learned  Jews,  six  of  each  tribe,  to  trans- 
late the  Law.  The  men  came,  and  accomplished 
their  task  in  as  many  days  as  there  were  men,  and 
they  all  made  the  same  translation  precisely  to  a 
letter.  It  is  said  that  this  translation  derived  its 
well-known  name  of  the  "Septuagint"  (that  is,  the 
Seventy)  from  the  number  of  its  authors.  All  this, 
however,  is  unhistorical;  the  Alexandrian  Jews  them- 
selves undertook  the  task,  and  it  is  not  improbable 
that  the  name  is  taken  from  the  seventy  members  of 


230  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

the  Sanhedrin  at  Alexandria,  who,  no  doubt,  gave 
the  version  their  approval. 

The  literature  of  the  Hellenists  is  pretty  extensive. 
Especially  numerous  are  the  writings  published  in  the 
names  of  more  ancient  authors,  and  all  these  aim  at 
impressing  the  heathen  with  the  glory  of  Judaism. 
The  Alexandrian  Jews  do  not  hesitate  to  put  words 
into  the  mouths  of  many  famous  Greek  writers  of 
former  times  in  praise  of  monotheism  and  the  moral 
precepts  of  the  Old  Testament.  To  this  class  of 
works  belongs  the  revelation  of  the  Sibyl,  to  which 
we  have  already  alluded ;  the  name  is  borrowed  from 
the  famous  priestesses  of  Apollo,  who  were  so  called. 
One  of  these  prophetesses  is  here  brought  on  to  the 
stage  to  predict  the  events  which  are  related  in  the 
Old  Testament.  Ancient  Jewish  authors,  too,  were 
made  to  lend  their  names  to  the  writings  of  the 
Hellenists.  They  always  present  the  same  character, 
only  modified  by  circumstances  and  especially  by 
the  degree  of  favor  in  which  the  heathens  stood 
among  the  Jews  at  the  time.  In  the  earlier  literature 
we  find  traces  of  nothing  but  a  friendly  and  cordial 
temper,  but  afterwards  we  also  meet  with  distinct 
signs  of  conflict  and  persecution. 

In  many  of  these  works  the  influence  of  Greek 
ideas  is  very  distinct.  This  is  most  conspicuous 
in  Philo,  the  principal  representative  of  Judaeo- 
Alexandrian  letters.  He  was  a  contemporary  of 
Jesus,  and  belonged  to  a  distinguished  Jewish  family. 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.  231 

His  elder  brother  stood  at  the  head  of  his  fellow 
believers  in  Alexandria,  and  he  himself  was  once 
sent  to  Rome  to  ask  for  the  emperor's  decision  in  a 
dispute  that  had  arisen.  We  do  not  know  any  further 
particulars  about  his  life ;  but  a  great  many  writings 
of  his  have  come  down  to  us.  From  these  we  see 
that  he  was  still  better  versed  in  the  Greek  philoso- 
phers than  his  predecessors.  He  made  himself 
master  of  their  ideas  and  concurred  in  many  of 
their  opinions.  Nevertheless,  he  remained  a  Jew, 
and  was  fully  persuaded  of  the  divinity  of  the  Law. 
Hence  he  arrived  of  necessity  at  the  belief  that 
those  philosophical  ideas  which  he  recognized  as 
true  must  be  contained  in  the  Old  Testament,  and 
must  have  been  borrowed  by  the  Greek  philosophers 
from  the  scriptures  of  the  Jews.  True  enough,  an 
ordinary  and  superficial  reader  of  these  writings 
could  not  possibly  guess  that  they  comprised  the 
sources  from  which  Greek  philosophy  was  derived ; 
but  these  books  had  a  double  meaning,  the  ordinary 
one,  which  was  obvious,  and  a  deeper  one,  which 
could  only  be  understood  by  learned  thinkers.  The 
allegorical  explanation  supplied  the  key;  the  simplest 
words,  the  names  of  things  and  persons  and  places, 
received  a  spiritual  interpretation,  and  thus  acquired 
an  entirely  new  meaning.  We  can  only  call  this 
arbitrary,  and  we  know  well  enough  that  Philo 
attributed  ideas  to  the  writers  which  were  altogether 
strange  to  them ;  but  he  and  others  of  his  way  of 


232  The  Religion  of'  Israel. 

thinking  not  only  thought  such  an  interpretation 
quite  right  and  fair,  but  considered  that  this  was  the 
only  way  in  which  the  real  meaning  of  an  Old  Testa- 
ment writer  could  be  understood.  All  this  makes  it 
clear  to  us  that  Philo's  ideas  were  much  in  advance 
of  the  Old  Testament,  but  he  was  too  thoroughgoing 
a  Jew  to  acknowledge  this,  and  the  only  course  open 
to  him  was  to  seek  a  remedy  in  the  allegorical  system 
of  interpretation. 

Philo's  peculiar  system  cannot  here  be  described. 
We  shall  only  notice  a  single  point,  and  this  is  one 
which  appears  again  in  the  New  Testament.  Philo 
was  a  dualist,  that  is  to  say,  he  believed  that  the 
matter  of  which  everything  consists  had  existed  from 
all  eternity  and  did  not  proceed  from  God.  He 
admitted  that  God  had  formed  whatever  exists,  but 
would  not  allow  that  he  had  produced  matter  itself. 
God  and  matter  are  both  eternal,  and  are  so  entirely 
separate  that  God  does  not  operate  upon  matter 
directly,  but  only  by  means  of  intermediate  beings. 
Here  he  is  thinking  of  the  angels  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  especially  of  the  divine  Wisdom,  which,  by 
degrees,  came  to  be  represented  as  a  personal  being 
associated  with  God.  This  idea  we  find  even  in  the 
Proverbs,  and  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  which  was  pro- 
duced in  Alexandria.  It  had  become  customary  to 
speak  of  the  divine  Word,  too,  as  a  personal  being. 
The  Greek  term,  Logos,  was  applied  to  this,  under- 
standing thereby  not  only  the  spoken  word,  by  which 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.  233 

God  had  created  the  world,  but  also  the  divine 
thought  itself.  Carrying  on  this  idea,  Philo  taught 
that  sundry  powers  proceeded  from  God,  and  that  the 
Logos  was  the  highest  of  these ;  it  was  like  God,  or 
rather,  it  was  God  himself,  but  only  God  as  he  reveals 
himself  in  the  world.  Now,  it  is  in  the  fashion  of 
this  Logos  that  man  is  created ;  spirit  and  matter  are 
at  strife  within  him,  but,  by  the  power  of  the  Logos,- 
he  may,  by.  slow  degrees,  come  to  God. 

This  doctrine  of  the  Logos  we  find  again  in  the 
New  Testament,  namely,  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  The 
author  of  this  work  begins  his  book  with  the  words : 
"  In  the  beginning  was  the  Logos,  and  the  Logos  was 
with  God,  and  the  Logos  was  God."  This  is  adopted 
from  Philo.  But  further  on  the  Evangelist  says  that 
the  Logos  became  man  in  Jesus.  It  was  an  obvious 
step  for  him  and  for  the  later  Christians  to  make  this 
application,  and  to  see  in  Jesus  a  manifestation  of 
that  divine  being  with  whom  Philo  had  made  them 
acquainted.  Thus,  the  famous  Alexandrian  prepared 
the  philosophical  forms  in  which  the  youthful  Chris- 
tian church  might  express  its  doctrinal  convictions. 

On  the  Jews  themselves  Philo  and  Hellenism  in 
general  exercised  but  little  influence.  Indeed,  this 
could  hardly  be  otherwise;  the  spirit  of  Hellenism 
was  too  foreign  to  Judaism.  True,  many  Hellenists 
had  settled  at  Jerusalem,  where  we  meet  them  in  the 
Book  of  Acts,  especially  Jews  from  Alexandria  and 
from  Cyrene;  but  they  made  their  influence  little 
30 


234  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

felt  there  and  were  regarded  and  treated  not  without 
suspicion  by  the  leaders  of  the  people.  Nor  need 
this  surprise  us ;  Hellenism  discharged  its  mission  in 
the  world,  and  helped  to  prepare  the  way  for  a  higher 
religion  ;  but,  in  the  history  of  Judaism,  from  which 
it  had  proceeded,  and  above  which,  in  some  respects, 
it  raised  itself,  it  was  of  no  account  whatever. 

Here  we  might  bring  this  work  to  an  end,  inasmuch 
as  we  have  dealt  with  the  history  of  the  religion  of 
the  Israelites  up  to  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
era,  and  given  a  sketch  of  their  fortunes  up  to  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem  in  the  year  70  after  Christ.  True, 
this  is  not  the  end  of  their  history ;  do  not  Israel  and 
its  religion  survive  to  our  own  day?  But  with  this 
we  have  nothing  to  do  here ;  the  purpose  we  set 
before  us  was  to  present  a  picture  of  the  growth  and 
progress  of  the  noblest  religion  of  antiquity.  We  have 
contemplated  that  religion  in  its  first  rude  forms, 
hardly  to  be  distinguished  from  the  fetishism  and 
the  polytheism  of  other  peoples ;  we  have  watched  it 
in  its  strenuous  struggle  to  grow  into  monotheism  ;  we 
have  viewed  it  in  its  fairest  and  noblest  manifesta- 
tions. We  have  made  acquaintance  with  its  story, 
step  by  step,  during  the  lapse,  of  thirteen  centuries, 
and  we  should  now  be  prepared  to  fix  our  gaze  upon 
that  new  religion  which  originated  in  Israel  and  rose 
to  be  the  mightiest  world-religion.  Thus  we  might 
fairly  plead  that  we  have  fulfilled  our  task,  were  it  not 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.   235 

that  we  desire  to  add  a  word  about  the  writings  of  the 
Jews  from  which  we  have  drawn  our  information.  It 
is  true  that  we  have  become  acquainted  with  them  in 
the  course  of  our  investigations,  but  they  came  to  be 
valued  as  sacred  writings  by  the  Israelites,  who  made 
a  collection  of  all  those  to  which  they  attributed 
divine  authority.  Concerning  this  collection  we  have 
yet  to  speak,  and  we  shall  dedicate  the  next  chapter- 
to  the  purpose.  But  there  is  something  more.  It  is 
of  importance  for  a  right  understanding  of  the  origin 
and  early  history  of  Christianity  that  we  should  allude 
to  one  more  point  in  the  condition  of  Israel,  which  will 
help  us  to  understand  the  readiness  with  which  num- 
bers of  Jews  accepted  Christianity;  and  we  must  say 
something,  too,  about  the  general  condition  of  that 
Greek  and  Roman  world  in  which  Christianity  made 
its  appearance  soon  after  the  death  of  its  founder. 

We  have  made  acquaintance  with  the  Sadducees 
and  the  Pharisees,  those  two  parties  who  contended 
for  the  foremost  place  among  the  Jews.  The  latter 
of  these  had  the  more  influence  on  the  people.  The 
struggle  between  these  parties  still  went  on,  and  the 
Pharisees  generally  got  the  best  of  it.  But  by  degrees 
another  party  arose  amongst  the  populace,  which 
could  not  acquiesce  in  the  guidance  of  the  scribes 
who  stood  at  the  head  of  the  Pharisaic  party,  for  the 
scribes  confined  themselves  more  and  more  to  the 
study  of  the  Law,  and  took  less  and  less  interest  in 
practical  matters.  At  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 


236  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

era  especially,  serious  political  difficulties  arose,  in  the 
solution  of  which  they  took  no  part,  because  the 
questions  involved  were  not  immediately  connected 
with  the  main  object  of  their  endeavors.  Nor  did 
they  seem  much  inclined  to  oppose  the  Roman  suprem- 
acy, since  it  hardly  affected  their  special  interests,  and 
they  did  not  care  to  interrupt  their  study  of  the  Law 
for  the  sake  of  taking  forcible  measures  against  their 
foreign  rulers.  A  great  part  of  the  people,  however, 
felt  quite  differently.  The  masses,  having  been 
instructed  by  the  scribes,  had  accepted  the  Law,  but 
could  not,  like  the  scribes,  be  satisfied  with  a  passive 
and  expectant  attitude.  If  the  Law  was  to  be  a 
reality,  the  chosen  people  ought  not  to  lie  under  the 
sceptre  of  the  heathen;  so  they  must  resist  the 
heathen  in  the  name  of  Yahweh,  and  they  could  not 
fail  to  be  victorious.  These  opinions  led  to  a  series 
of  revolts  against  the  authority  of  the  Romans.  In 
the  year  6  A.  D.  when  Judaea  was  added  on  to  Syria, 
and  Quirinius,  the  governor,  held  a  census,  which  the 
pious  regarded  as  a  token  of  slavery,  Judas  the 
Galilean  rose  up  against  him,  and  received  consider- 
able support,  although  he  proved  unsuccessful.  The 
same  thing  occurred  constantly.  The  members  of 
this  party  were  called  "Zealots;"  they  were  for  main- 
taining the  Law  by  force  of  arms,  differing  in  this 
respect  from  the  majority  of  the  Pharisees.  Thus 
they  practically  withdrew  from  the  guidance  of  the 
Scribes. 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.   237 

The  revival  of  the  Messianic  expectation  must  be 
coupled  with  all  this.  It  had  never  disappeared,  but 
up  to  the  time  we  are  discussing  it  had  had  no  prac- 
tical influence  on  the  attitude  of  the  people.  Now, 
however,  matters  changed  greatly.  In  the  literature 
of  this  period,  immediately  before  '  and  after  the 
beginning  of  our  era,  we  find  traces  of  the  change. 
Nor  is  it  surprising  that  the  populace,  groaning  under 
the  weight  of  Roman  oppression,  began  to  attach 
more  value  to  the  ancient  anticipations  of  the  prophets, 
or  rather,  that  these  anticipations  assumed  a  more 
prominent  place  in  their  thoughts.  Their  idea  of  a 
Messiah,  a  son  of  David,  varied  a  great  deal,  no 
doubt,  and  was,  generally  speaking,  very  indefinite 
and  misty;  but  the  expectation  itself  was  none  the 
less  powerful  for  that,  and  in  the  misery  of  those 
days  it  brought  consolation  to  many  hearts,  while  it 
fired  the  courage  of  the  Zealots.  At  a  later  period 
these  Messianic  expectations  wonderfully  facilitated 
the  spread  of  Christianity  among  the  Jews. 

The  religion  of  Jesus,  though  it  owed  its  birth  to 
Judaism,  speedily  passed  far  beyond  the  narrow 
boundaries  of  the  Jews.  Among  the  heathen  it  found 
a  fruitful  soil  well  prepared  for  its  reception,  waiting, 
as  it  were,  to  receive  the  seed  of  the  gospel.  More- 
over, the  circumstances  of  the  time  were  exceptionally 
favorable  for  the  spread  of  Christianity ;  and  to  these 
circumstances  we  must  now  devote  a  few  sentences. 

The  Romans  did  not  hinder,  but  rather  promoted, 


238  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

the  subjection  of  Asia  to  the  influence  of  Greek 
civilization,  which  was  the  grand  conception  of  Alex- 
ander the  Great.  That  universal  dominion  which 
they  had  established  carried  the  influence  of  knowl- 
edge and  civilization  to  the  ends  of  the  then  known 
world.  The  peoples  of  the  earth  learned  to  know 
and  to  respect  each  other ;  their  union  under  a  single 
sceptre  snapped  the  cords  of  a  narrow  patriotism, 
while  leading  all  to  regard  one  another  as  men  of  like 
dispositions  and  like  necessities.  The  conception 
that  all  men  are  brothers  took  possession  of  the 
minds  of  the  best  men  of  the  age.  Unity  of  language 
promoted  mutual  intercourse  and  the  spread  of 
knowledge  and  information.  The  universal  dominion 
of  Rome  brought  peace  with  it  and  a  sentiment  of 
fraternity  among  the  nations.  In  the  sphere  of 
religion  a  policy  of  toleration  was  pursued,  and,  at 
first,  no  hindrance  was  put  in  the  way  of  the  new 
faith. 

Moreover,  at  the  same  time,  the  need  of  religion 
made  itself  more  felt.  The  old  religions  were  super- 
annuated; they  had  fallen  before  the  might  of 
philosophy.  But  that  philosophy  had  nothing  to 
give  in  place  of  what  it  had  taken  away.  True,  in 
its  noblest  representatives,  the  Stoics  and  the  Epicu- 
reans, it  had  declared  the  most  exalted  truths,  preached 
the  unity  of  God,  and  laid  the  utmost  stress  on  the 
practice  of  virtue;  but  the  masses  felt  little  of  its 
influence;  they  imbibed  the  negations  of  philosophy, 


In  the  Age  Preceding  the  Christian  Era.  239 

and  had  lost  all  belief  in  the  gods  of  old,  but  were 
unable  to  rise  to  the  new  point  of  view  which  phi- 
losophy indicated,  for  it  was  something  else  that  they 
wanted.  Human  nature  is  constitutionally  religious, 
and  if  the  influence  of  some  new  way  of  looking  at 
things  destroys  the  old  ideas,  many  may  be  led  into 
doubt,  but  the  majority  seek  new  forms  to  satisfy  their 
needs.  Nor  do  they  usually  show  much  timidity  in 
the  examination  and  acceptance  of  other  forms  of 
religion,  provided  only  they  find  something  that  seems 
likely  to  satisfy  them.  And  so  it  was  in  the  old 
world  of  Greece  and  Rome.  The  belief  in  the 
ancient  gods  had  had  its  day,  and  was  now  only  to 
be  met  with  in  the  lower  ranks  of  society.  Philoso- 
phy, however  beautiful  and  exalted  in  its  noblest 
representatives,  was  not  fitted  to  take  the  place  of 
religion,  and  could  offer  no  compensation  for  what 
was  lost.  Men  looked  for  something  else.  It  was 
thought  by  many  that  it  must  come  out  of  the  East, 
and  they  attached  themselves  eagerly  to  every  super- 
stition and  secret  rite  which  came  from  Asia  or  from 
Egypt.  It  was  a  time  of  transition,  full  of  doubt  on 
the  one  hand  and  of  unbelief  on  the  other,  but  ready 
to  receive  the  new  religion  when  the  hour  should 
strike. 


240  The  Religion  of  Israel. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

THE    COLLECTION     OF     THE     BOOKS     OF    THE     OLD 
TESTAMENT. 

TTj^OR  many  centuries  both  the  Christians  and  the 
•*•  Jews  supposed  that  Ezra  had  brought  together 
the  sacred  writings  of  his  people,  united  them  in  one 
whole,  and  introduced  them  as  a  book  given  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  —  a  Holy  Scripture.  The  only  authority 
for  this  supposition  was  a  very  modern  and  altogether 
untrustworthy  tradition.  The  historical  and  critical 
studies  of  our  times  have  been  emancipated  from  the 
influence  of  this  tradition,  and  the  most  ancient 
statements  with  regard  to  the  subject  have  been 
hunted  up  and  compared  together.  These  statements 
are,  indeed,  scanty  and  incomplete,  and  many  a 
detail  is  still  obscure;  but  the  main  facts  have  been 
completely  ascertained. 

Before  the  Babylonish  captivity,  Israel  had  no 
sacred  writings.  There  were  certain  laws,  prophetic 
writings,  and  a  few  historical  books,  but  no  one  had 
ever  thought  of  ascribing  binding  and  divine  authority 
to  these  documents.  But  after  the  captivity  things 
underwent  a  change.  Ezra  brought  the  priestly  Law 
with  him  from  Babylon,  altering  it  and  amalgamating 
it  with  the  narratives  and  laws  already  in  existence, 


The  Books  of  the  Old  Testament.        241 

and  thus  produced  the  Pentateuch  in  pretty  much  the 
same  form  as  we  still  have  it.  These  books  got  the 
name  of  the  "Law  of  Moses/'  or  simply  the  "Law." 
Ezra  introduced  them  into  Israel  as  a  code  of  law, 
and  gave  them  binding  authority,  and  from  that  time 
forward  they  were  considered  divine. 

In  the  earliest  period  after  Ezra,  none  of  the  other 
books  which  already  existed  enjoyed  the  same  author- 
ity as  the  Pentateuch.  All  that  we  are  entitled  to 
infer  as  probable  on  the  strength  of  the  statement  in 
2  Maccabees  ii.  13,  is  that  Nehemiah  made  a  collec- 
tion of  historical  and  prophetic  books,  songs,  and 
letters  from  Persian  kings.  His  object  in  doing  this 
was  to  save  them  from  being  lost,  not  to  form  a  second 
collection  analogous  to  the  collection  of  the  Law. 
This  was  done  for  the  first  time  by  those  followers  of 
Ezra,  the  scribes  of  Jerusalem,  whom  we  have  made 
acquaintance  with  as  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue. 
These  were  the  real  collectors  of  the  second  and 
third  divisions  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  first  thing  these  scribes  did  was  to  select  out 
of  the  existing  collection  such  books  as  belonged  to 
the  times  prior  to  the  captivity.  These  consisted  of 
historical  and  prophetic  books ;  some  of  these  were 
taken  without  any  alteration,  while  others  were  edited 
afresh;  this  was  the  case,  for  example,  with  the  col- 
lection of  the  so-called  minor  prophets.  After  the 
time  of  Malachi,  however,  the  opinion  became  estab- 
lished that  there  would  be  no  more  prophets  in  Israel, 
31 


242  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

and  on  this  account  the  collection  of  the  prophetic 
books  was  closed  with  him.  To  this  second  division 
also  belonged  the  Books  of  Ruth  and  Lamentations  j 
otherwise  it  comprised  just  the  same  writings  which 
are  still  included  in  it. 

It  was  probably  about  the  same  time  that  the 
scribes  made  a  third  collection,  that,  namely,  of  the 
Writings.  They  put  under  this  head  such  books  as 
could  not  be  regarded  as  prophetic,  and  yet,  on 
account  of  their  contents,  could  not  be  passed  over. 
The  Songs,  or  Psalms,  which  had  already  been  col- 
lected by  Nehemiah,  constituted  the  first  portion  of 
it ;  the  Proverbs,  Job,  and  the  Song  of  Solomon,  too, 
were  already  in  existence,  and,  in  the  course  of  time, 
they  were  added  to  the  collection,  together  with  such 
books  of  later  origin  as  were  thought  to  deserve  the 
distinction.  It  must  not  be  supposed  that  any  fixed 
plan  was  pursued  in  this  work,  or  that  the  idea  was 
entertained  from  the  first,  that  these  books  would  one 
day  stand  on  the  same  level  as  the  Pentateuch.  They 
were  collected  to  prevent  their  getting  lost,  and  others 
were  gradually  added  to  them,  such  as  Chronicles, 
Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther,  and  Ecclesiastes.  The  last 
of  all  to  be  included  in  the  collection  was  Daniel. 
For  a  long  time,  however,  there  was  great  difference 
of  opinion  as  to  what  books  had  a  right  to  claim  a 
place  among  the  Writings.  The  Alexandrian  Jews 
especially  adopted  books  into  the  canon  which  those 
of  Jerusalem  did  not;  scribes  of  a  subsequent  time, 


The  Books  of  the  Old  Testament.        243 

too,  had  doubts  about  some  books  which  the  men  of 
the  Great  Synagogue  had  already  placed  on  the  list 
of  Holy  Scriptures.  The  books  in  question  were 
Ezekiel,  Ecclesiastes,  the  Song  of  Solomon.  Esther, 
and  perhaps  the  Proverbs.  The  reason  for  doubting 
Ezekiel  was  that  he  did  not  agree  with  the  Law; 
while,  in  the  case  of  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Song  of 
Solomon,  it  was  impossible  to  find  anything  religious 
about  them,  and  their  only  claim  to  the  honor  of  inclu- 
sion was  the  supposition  that  Solomon  had  written 
them.  Like  doubts  were  long  entertained  about 
Esther;  nor  need  we  be  surprised  at  this,  when  we 
observe  the  total  absence  of  the  religious  spirit  from 
the  book.  This  difference  of  opinion  among  the 
scribes  as  to  whether  these  books  ought  to  be  included 
or  not,  lasted  till  the  second  century  after  Christ; 
and  this  is  proof  enough  that  they  did  not  consider 
themselves  bound  by  the  opinions  of  their  predeces- 
sors, and  that  these  books  about  which  there  was  so 
much  disagreement  were  not  put  on  the  same  level  as 
the  Law.  The  discussion,  however,  only  had  refer- 
ence  to  some  particular  writings ;  in  general  we  may 
suppose  that,  in  the  first  century  before  Christ,  con- 
siderable unanimity  prevailed  concerning  most  of  the 
Books  of  the  Old  Testament.  By  degrees  they  all 
acquired  divine  authority ;  involuntarily  the  Jews 
extended  the  homage  which  they  paid  to  the  Law,  to 
the  Prophets,  and  subsequently  to  the  Writings  as 
well.  This  did  not  take  place  suddenly  or  by  general 


244  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

agreement,  but  in  the  lapse  of  years  the  Jews  came 
to  the  belief  that  God  had  inspired  the  writers  of  all 
these  books,  and  thus  they  came  to  be  accepted  as  a 
rule  of  faith  and  morals.  As  the  revealed  will  of 
Yahweh,  they  acquired  the  force  of  law  for  every 
believer,  and  it  was  for  him  to  submit  himself  to  them 
entirely. 

These  books,  which  were  afterwards  regarded  as 
Holy  Scriptures  by  the  Christians  too,  were  called 
canonical,  from  a  Greek  word  meaning  a  list.  But  the 
canon  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  nrust  not 
"  be  understood  simply  as  a  list  of  the  books  of  the 
Jews,  but  as  a  list  of  their  holy  books,  accepted  by 
them  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  morals,  to  which  every 
one  must  be  faithful  and  obedient.  In  contradis- 
tinction to  these,  all  the  rest  of  the  Jewish  writings, 
are  called  apocryphal,  which  means  hidden,  a  word 
to  which  the  unfavorable  signification  of  spurious 
or  fictitious  was  afterwards  attached.  It  was  only  by 
very  slow  degrees  that  the  books  which  do  not  appear 
in  the  Hebrew  canon  at  last  acquired  this  name. 
At  first  some  of  them  stood  in  a  position  similar  to 
that  of  the  canonical  writings  themselves.  This  was 
the  case  with  those  works  which  were  found  in  the 
Greek  version  of  the  Septuagint,  and  which  were  thus 
regarded  with  just  as  much  respect  as  the  rest  by  the 
Alexandrian  Jews,  and  by  every  one  else  who  used  this 
version,  even  the  early  Christians  themselves.  Some 
of  them  were  originally  written  in  Hebrew,  others  in 


The  Books  of  the  Old  Testament.        24$ 

Greek,  although  we  do  not  possess  any  of  them, 
except  in  a  Greek.  ^Ethiopia,  or  Latin  dress.  The 
most  important  are  three  books  of  the  Maccabees, 
Judith,  Tobit,  Ecclesiasticus,  Wisdom,  and  Baruch, 
as  well  as  certain  additions  to  Ezra,  Daniel,  and 
Esther.  These  books  were  never  called  apocryphal 
in  ancient  times,  but  on  the  contrary,  were  highly 
esteemed.  Those  writings  only  were  then  called 
apocryphal  which  were  not  found  in  the  Septuagint, 
such  as  the  Book  of  Enoch,  the  Psalms  of  Solomon, 
and  the  Revelation  of  Ezra.  Subsequently,  all  these 
books  were  placed  on  the  same  level,  and  it  came  to  be 
the  general  opinion  that  they  were  not  holy  or  inspired 
by  God,  while  all  the  books  of  the  Hebrew  canon 
began  to  be  considered  holy  and  divine.  We,  who 
know  the  origin  of  these  books,  can  make  no  such 
distinctions. 

The  Talmud,  that  is  to  say,  the  "Instruction," 
belongs  to  the  religious  literature  of  the  Jews.  In 
this  book  are  included  the  oral  tradition  and  the  com- 
mentaries composed  by  the  scribes  from  the  second 
to  the  fifth  century  after  Christ.  The  first  part  of 
the  Talmud  is  called  the  Mishnah,  or  the  Repetition, 
and  contains  the  tradition  from  the  time  of  the  older 
scribes,  written  in  Hebrew,  and  closed  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  third  century.  A  second  p-art  is  added, 
called  the  Gemarah,  or  Supplement.  It  contains 
traditions  not  previously  noted  down,  and  later  com- 
mentaries. We  have  two  recensions  of  it  —  the 


246  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

Palestinian,  edited  by  the  scribes  in  Palestine,  and 
closed  about  the  end  of  the  fourth  or  the  beginning  of 
the  fifth  century,  and  the  Babylonian,  edited  by  the 
doctors  in  Babylon,  and  closed  about  the  year  A. D.  500. 
The  Gemarah  is  not  in  Hebrew,  but  in  the  dialects 
of  Palestine  and  Babylon.  Sundry  other  pieces  were 
afterwards  added  to  the  Talmud,  such  as  the  Targum, 
or  version  of  the  holy  books,  while  at  the  same  time, 
in  the  sixth  and  following  centuries,  the  text  of  the 
Old  Testament  was  fixed  by  the  Masorites,  that  is  to 
say,  the  men  of  the  Masorah  or  tradition.  This  is 
the  text  which  we  still  use ;  while  the  Talmud  itself, 
in  its  integrity,  is  the  most  important  source  of  our 
knowledge  of  Judaism  in  the  first  centuries  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem. 


APPENDIX. 


CATECHISM. 


CHAPTER  I. 

[Pages  1-7.] 
SOURCES   OF    INFORMATION. 

1.  From  what  sources  do  we  get  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  religion  of  Israel  ? 

We  get  our  knowledge  of  the  religion  of  Israel  from 
the  Old  Testament.  P.  i. 

a.  What  is  the  meaning  of  "  Old  Testament " 

or  "  Covenant "  ? 

b.  Enumerate  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 

ment. 

c.  In  what  language. are  they  written  ? 

2.  How  come  these  books  to  be  the  sources  of 
our  knowledge  of  the  religion  of  Israel  ? 

The  books  of  the  Old  Testament  bear  historical 
witness  of  the  religion  of  the  Israelites  at  dif- 
ferent periods  of  their  existence,  and  thus  they 
give  us  a  knowledge  of  the  growth  of  their 
religion.  P.  i. 


248  The  Religion  of  Israel 

a.  Why  is  some  chronological  arrangement  of 

the  books  so  necessary  to  our  studies  ? 

b.  Can  we  tell  for  certain  how  old  each  of 

these  books  is  ? 

c.  Has  due  stress   always  been  laid  upon 

this  question  ? 

3.  Are  these  books  of  value  to  us  for  any 
other  purpose  besides  the  study  of  the  religion 
of  Israel  ? 

These  books  teach  us  the  history  of  the  Israelitish 
people  as  well ;  but  this  is  very  closely  connected 
with  the  history  of  its  religion.  P.  3. 

a.  Which  books  are  the  most  important  for 

the  political  history  ? 

b.  How  far  is  the  history  of  Israel  carried 

in  the  Old  Testament  ? 

c.  Why  is  the  political  history  of  Israel  so 

closely  connected  with  the  history  of  its 
religion  ? 

4.  Are  there  any  other  sources  of  information 
concerning  the  religious  and  political  condition 
of  Israel  ? 

We  get  important  contributions  towards  a  knowledge 
of  the  latest  periods  of  Israel's  existence,  as  a 
nation,  from  the  Apocryphal  Books,  Flavius 
Josephus,  Philo,  and  the  Talmud.  P.  5. 

a.  What  do  you  know  about  the  Apocryphal 
Books  ? 


Catechism.  249 

b.  Who  was  Flavius  Josephus,  and  what  did 

he  write  ? 

c.  How  far  do  Philo  and  the  Talmud  help  us  ? 

d.  Are  there  any  other  monuments  or  writ- 

ings besides  these,  which  throw  a  light 
upon  some  periods  of  the  history  of 
Israel ? 


CHAPTER  II. 

[Pages  7-19.] 
THE   SAME   CONTINUED. 

1.  Of  what  divisions  does  the  Old  Testament 
consist  ? 

According  to  the  division  adopted  by  the  Jews,  the 
Old  Testament  contains :  \st,  the  Law  ;  zd,  the 
Prophets  ;  and  ^d,  the  Writings.  P.  7. 

a.  How  did  this  arrangement  come  about  ? 

b.  How  are  these  books  arranged  amongst 

ourselves  ? 

2.  What  books  constitute  the  Law  ? 

The  Law  consists  of  five  books,  which  are  called 
Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  and  Deut- 
eronomy. P.  8. 

a.  What  do  these  names  mean  ? 

b.  Why   are   these    books    also   called   the 

Pentateuch  ? 

c.  When  were  they  written  ? 
32 


250  ^The  Religion  of  Israel. 

d.  Can  we  discover  different  documents  in 

these  books  ? 

e.  In  what  sense  are  these  books  called  "the 

books  of  Moses"  ? 

f.  Why  cannot  they  have  been  written  by 
Moses  himself  ? 

3.  What  books  are  called  "the  Prophets"  ? 

Among  the  Prophets  the  Jews  reckoned:  ist,  the  books 
of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,  which 
are  historical  in  their  contents  ;  2d,  the  prophetic 
writings  properly  so  called,  viz.  (a.)  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel,  which  are  called  the 
Greater  Prophets,  and  (b.)  the  Minor  Prophets, 
Hosea,  Joel,  Amos,  Obadiah,  Jotiah,  Micah, 
Nahum,  Habakkuk,  Zephaniah,  Haggai,  Zech- 
ariah,  and  Malachi.  P.  n. 

a.  Why  are  the  books   of  Joshua,  Judges, 

Samuel  and  Kings  considered  to  belong 
to  the  prophets  ? 

b.  Do  we  find  any  history  in  the  more  dis- 

tinctly prophetic  writings  ? 

c.  What  do  you  know  of  the  origin  and  con- 

tents of  each  of  these  books  ? 

4.  Which  books  constitute  the  writings  ? 

All  the  rest  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament :  viz. 
Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job,  Song  of  Solomon,  Ruth, 
Lamentations,  Rr.df^itf^  Esther,  Daniel,  Ezra, 
Nehemiah,  and  Chronicles.  P.  16. 

a.  What  is  meant  by  calling  these  books 
"the  Writings"? 


Catechism.  251 

b.  What  have  you  to  say  about  each  of  these 
books  individually  ? 

CHAPTER  III. 

[Pages  19-26.] 
THE   SAME   CONTINUED. 

1.  From  what  sources  did  the  writers  of  the 
Old  Testament  derive  their  accounts  of  the  his- 
tory of  Israel  ? 

The  great  majority  of  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment  got  their  knowledge  of  the  history  of  Israel 
simply  from  Tradition ;  and  the  result  is  that 
we  find  a  great  many  sagas  or  legends  in  what 
they  have  written.  P.  2 1 . 

a.  What  do  you  mean  by  "  tradition  "  ? 

b.  At  about  what  time  did  they  begin  to 

reduce  tradition  to  writing  ? 

c.  What  are  sagas  or  legends  ? 

2.  To  what  do  these  writers  make  their  repre- 
sentations of  history  subordinate  ? 

These  writers  are  governed  in  their  representations 
of  history  by  the  overwhelming  influence  of  their 
own  opinions,  which  differ  according  as  their 
sympathies  are  prophetic  or  priestly.  P.  22. 

a.  What  kind  of  opinions  do  we  call  pro- 

phetic ? 

b.  And  what  kind  do  we  call  priestly  ? 

c.  Give  an  instance  of  the  influence  of  each 

of  these  two  ways  of  thinking. 


252  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

d.  How  does  our  modern  way  of  writing  his- 
tory differ  from  that  of  these  authors  ? 

3.  In  spite  of  all  this,  are  these  books  of  any 
use  in  studying  the  history  of  the  religion  of 
Israel  ? 

However  strenuously  we  maintain  the  distinction  be- 
tween what  is  historical  and  what  is  unhistorical, 
both  these  elements  are  sources  of  information 
for  us  concerning  the  growth  of  the  religion  of 
Israel.  P.  24. 

a.  Why   must   this    distinction   be    strenu- 

ously maintained  ? 

b.  How  is  it  that  the  unhistorical  elements 

are  just  as  useful  to  us  as  the  historical 
elements  ? 

c.  Are  there  any  myths  in  the  historical 

portions  ? 

4.  Have  not  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
a  still  higher  value  for  us  ? 

So  mighty  a  religious  spirit  speaks  to  us  from  these 
books,  that  our  own  religious  life  is  still  aroused 
and  strengthened  by  it.  P.  26. 

a.  Is  this  equally  true  of  all  the  books  ? 

b.  To  what  books  does  it  chiefly  apply  ? 

CHAPTER  IV. 

[Pages  27-33.] 
THE   TRIBES    IN    GOSHEN. 

I.  Where  does  the  history  of  the  religion  of 
Israel  begin  ? 


Catechism.  253 

The  history  of  the  religion  of  Israel  begins  with  the 
sojourn  of  the  tribes  in  Egypt.  P.  27. 

a.  Where   was    it   formerly    considered   to 

begin  ? 

b.  Why  do  we  reject  this  view? 

2.  In  what  light  are  we  to  regard  the  narra- 
tives which  precede  that  period  ? 

The  narratives  which  precede  that  period  do  not  com- 
prise any  history  properly  so  called,  but  they 
represent  the  ideas  of  the  Israelites  about  their 
past.  P.  27. 

a.  How  far  back  do  these  narratives  go  ? 

b.  What  did    the    Israelites   believe   about 

their  ancestors  ? 

c.  Is  this  altogether  destitute  of  historical 

foundation  ? 

3.  What  are  we  told  about  the  coming  of  the 
Israelites  to  Egypt  ? 

According  to  the  tradition  the  elevation  of  Joseph,  the 
son  of  Jacob,  to  the  post  of  viceroy  of  Egypt  led 
to  the  emigration  of  his  whole  family  to  that 
country  from  Canaan.  P.  31. 

a.  What  are  we  told  of  Joseph  ? 

b.  Does  the  history  of  Egypt  contain  any 

additional  traces  of  the  sojourn  of  Israel 
in  Gosh  en  ? 

4.  What  rendered  the  sojourn   in   Egypt  of 
great  importance  to  the  Israelites  ? 


254  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

The  Israelites,  still  divided  as  they  were  into  tribes, 
were  prepared  in  Egypt  for  their  amalgamation 
into  a  nation.  P.  32. 

a.  How  long  did  the  sojourn  in  Egypt  last  ? 

b.  How  did  their  sojourn  in  Egypt  prepare 

the  way  for  their  amalgamation  into  a 
nation  ? 

CHAPTER  V. 

[Pages  33-39.] 
THE   SAME   CONTINUED. 

1.  In  what  respects  did  the  religion  of  the 
Israelites  in  Goshen  agree  with  that  of  the  other 
Semites  ? 

The  religion  of  the  Israelites  in  Goshen  was,  like  that 
of  the  rest  of  the  Semites,  a  nature-worship.  P.  34. 

a.  Are  any  traces  of  this  preserved  in  the 

Old  Testament  ? 

b.  Did  this  nature-worship  continue  to  exist 

at  a  later  time  ? 

2.  How  far  did  the  religion  of  the  Israelites 
stand  above  that  of  the  rest  of  the  Semites  ? 

The  religion  of  the  Israelites  was  especially  directed 
to  the  heavenly  and  invisible,  and  this  made  it 
capable  of  developing  into  monotheism.  P.  37. 

a.  How  were  the  two  things  connected  ? 

b.  When  did  this  nature-worship  first  de- 

velop  into    monotheism    amongst   the 
Israelites  ? 


Catechism.  255 

3.  What  do  we  know  of  the  worship  practised 
by  the  Israelites  in  Goshen  ? 

There  are  traces  of  the  different  tribes  having  wor- 
shiped their  own  special  gods  as  well  as  one  deity 
common  to  them  all.  P.  38. 

a.  What  traces  do  we  find  of  the  existence 

of  these  special  gods  ? 

b.  Under  what  names  do  these  gods  appear 

in  the  Bible  ? 

4.  Under  what  name  did  the  tribes  in  Goshen 
worship  their  common  deity  ? 

The  tribes  in  Goshen  called  their  common  deity  "  El- 
Shaddai"  or  the  Mighty  One.  P.  38. 

a.  What  idea  is  contained  in  the  name  ? 

b.  Who  was  the  first   to   use  this   mame, 

.  according  to  the  Bible  ? 

CHAPTER  VI. 

[Pages  39-51-] 
MOSES. 

I.  What  influence  had  Israel's  liberation  from 
Egypt  upon  the  development  of  its  religion  ? 

Through  their  liberation  from  Egypt,  under  the  leader- 
ship of  Moses,  the  belief  of  the  Israelites  in  the 
power  of  their  national  god  was  greatly  strength- 
ened. P.  41. 

a.  Who  was  Moses  ? 

b.  How  is  the  history  of  the  Exodus  related  ? 


256  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

c.  What  festival  was  subsequently  kept  in 
remembrance  of  the  Exodus  ? 

2.  What  share  had  Moses  in  forming  the  re- 
ligion of  Israel ? 

Moses  gave  El-Shaddai  the  name  of  Yahweh,  and 
endeavored  to  induce  the  tribes  to  worship  him  to 
the  exclusion  of  all  other  gods.  P.  42. 

a.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  name  Jehovah 

or  Yahweh  ? 

b.  Did  the  belief  in  Yahweh  at  this  time  in- 

clude the  belief  in  the  unity  of  God  ? 

c.  Was  Moses  indebted  to  the  Egyptians 

for  any  element  of  his  religion  ? 

d.  What  attitude  did  Moses  assume  towards 

the  worship  of  images  ? 

3.  What   was   the   special   excellence  of   the 
religion  of  Moses  ? 

The  special  excellence  of  the  religion  of  Moses  ray  in 
a  moral  character  higher  than  was  to  be  found 
in  other  religions.  P.  46. 

a.  Was  the  people  sufficiently  advanced  to 

appreciate  this  moral  character  ? 

b.  What   is    the    connection    between    this 

moral    character    and    the   worship   of 
Yahweh  as  the  Holy  One  ? 

c.  How  did   Moses  represent  the  holiness 

of  Yahweh  ? 

4.  What  was  Moses'  conception  of  the  rela- 
tion between  Yahweh  and  Israel  ? 


Catechism.  257 

Moses  represented  the  relation  between  Yahweh  and 
Israel  as  a  covenant,  of  which  the  code  of  the  Ten 
Commandments  constituted  the  basis.  P.  48. 

a.  What  are  we  told  about  the  inauguration 

of  this  covenant  ? 

b.  How  does   the   code  of   the  Ten   Com- 

mandments run  ? 

c.  Is  this  code,  in  the  form  in  which  it  has 

come  down  to  us,  derived  from  Moses  ? 

d.  Where  was  the  code  kept,  according  to 

the  tradition  ? 

e.  Are  any  other  laws  ascribed  to  Moses  ? 

CHAPTER  VII. 

[Pages  52-63.] 
THE    PERIOD    OF   THE   JUDGES. 

1.  What  course  did  the  religion  of  Israel  take 
after  Moses'  death  ? 

Though  some  of  the  people  kept  to  the  service  of  Yah- 
weh after  Moses1*  death,  it  did  not,  for  the  next 
few  centuries,  prove  strong  enough  to  supplant 
the  worship  of  other  gods  on  the  part  of  the 
majority.  P.  54. 

a.  How  do  you  explain  this  ? 

b.  What  did  Joshua  do  for  Mosaism  ? 

2.  What  influence  did  the  settlement  of  the 
people   in   Canaan   exercise  on   the   service   of 
Yahweh  ? 

It  led  to  the  admixture  with  it  of  sundry  elements  of 
the  religion  of  the  indigenous  peoples.  P.  57. 

33 


258  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

a.  What  peoples  dwelt  in  Canaan,  and  what 

do  we  read  about  their  origin  ? 

b.  What  are  we  told  of   the  entrance  into 

Canaan  and  the  settlement  there  ? 

c.  How  was  the  people  governed  in  times 

of  peace  and  of  war  respectively  ? 

3.  In  what  religious  condition  were  the  Israel- 
ites during  this  period  ? 

During  the  period  of  the  Judges  the  Israelites  were 
in  a  transition  state,  marked  by  great  barbar- 
ism. P.  60. 

a.  Did  the  Judges  contribute  anything  to- 

wards the  'development  of  the  religion 
of  Israel  ? 

b.  What  do  we  learn  from  the  song  of  De- 

borah in  Judges  v.  ? 

c.  What  do  the  stories  of  Gideon,  of  Jeph- 

thah,  and  of*  Samson  show  ? 

d.  What  are  we  told  about  the  ark  of  the 

covenant  ? 

e.  What  forms  of  worship  prevailed  in  those 

days  ? 

4.  What  result  did  this  state  of  things  lead  to  ? 

The  Israelites,  frequently  oppressed  by  their  enemies, 
began  to  feel  more  and  more  attachment  to  the 
service  of  Yahweh,  and  strongly  felt  the  need  of 
being  more  closely  united.  P.  62. 

a.  What  enemies  oppressed  them  ? 


Catechism.  259 

b.  Is  this  political  misery  to  be  ascribed  in 
any  measure  to  the  mutual  relations  of 
the  tribes  ? 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

[Pages  63-74.] 
SAMUEL    AND    SAUL. 

1.  Who  exercised  an  auspicious  influence  on 
the  development  of  the  religion  of  Israel  towards 
the  close  of  the  period  of  the  Judges  ? 

Samuel,  the  last  of  the  Judges,  powerfully  stirred  up 
the  religious  feeling  of  his  nation  and  laid  the 
foundations  of  its  political  unity.  P.  63. 

a.  What  accounts  have  we  of  Samuel  ? 

b.  In  what  relation  did  he  stand  to  Mosaism  ? 

2.  What  new  phenomenon  do  we  meet  with  at 
this  time  ? 

Prophecy.  It  originated  in  an  exalted  religious 
enthusiasm,  and  was  fostered  and  guided  by 
Samuel.  P.  66. 

a.  Is  any  mention  made  of  prophets  before 

this  ? 

b.  What  were  the  schools  of  the  prophets  ? 

c.  What  were  seers  ? 

3.  How  did  the  nation  achieve  political  unity  ? 

The  nation  achieved  political  unity  through  the  agency 
of  Saul,  who  obtained  important  victories  over 
the  enemies  of  Israel  and  was  raised  to  the 
throne.  P.  69. 


260  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

a.  What  tribe  did  Saul  belong  to  ? 

b.  What  were  his  distinguishing  qualities  ? 

c.  What  are  the  different  stories  that  we 

have,  in  I.  Samuel,  viii.-xii.,  about  his 
elevation  to  the  throne  ? 

4.  In  what  relation  did  Saul  stand  to  Samuel  ? 

At  first  Saul  was  very  friendly  with  Samuel,  but  after 
a  time  there  was  a  serious  rupture  between  them, 
that  led  Samuel  to  seek  another  king.  P.  7 1 . 

a.  What  are  we  told  about  his  searching  for 

a  suitable  king  ? 

b.  What  was  Saul's  end  ? 

CHAPTER  IX. 

[Pages  74-95-1 
DAVID   AND    SOLOMON. 

I.  What  political  services  did  David,   Saul's 
successor,  do  to  Israel  ? 

David  subdued  the  enemies  of  Israel  at  home  and 
abroad,  and  thus  made  the  kingdom  powerful. 

p.  79. 

a.  Did   he   become   king   of   the  whole  of 

Israel  immediately  after  Saul's  death  ? 

b.  Why  was  the  capture  of  Jebus,  afterwards 

called  Jerusalem,  important  ? 

c.  What  measures  did  David  take  in  refer- 

ence to  military  affairs  ? 

d.  What   danger   threatened   the    kingdom 

through  the  revolt  of  Absolom  ? 


Catechism.  261 

2.  What  influence  did  David  exercise  on  the 
religion  of  Israel  ? 

David  worked  in  the  spirit  of  Samuel  for  the  pro- 
motion of  the  service  of  Yahweh,  and  prepared 
the  way  for  the  unity  of  public  worship.  P.  81. 

a.  What  did  David  do  for  the  promotion  of 

the  service  of  Yahweh  ? 
6.  Was  his    private   life  in   harmony  with 

these  measures  ? 

c.  What  must  we  infer  from  David's  treat- 

ment of  Saul's  seven  sons  and  grand- 
sons (2.  Samuel,  xxi.)  ? 

d.  What  claims  has  he  to  be  regarded  as  the 

composer  of  a  number  of  the  psalms  ? 

3.  Who  was  David's  successor  ? 

David  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Solomon,  who  carried 
Israel  to  the  highest  pitch  of  prosperity.  P.  86. 

a.  How  did  Solomon  govern  ? 

b.  What  relations  did   he  enter  into  with 

neighboring  nations  ? 

c.  What  were  his  relations  with  the  prophets, 

and  how  were  they  afterwards  modified  ? 

d.  What  was  the  condition  of  Israel  politi- 

cally at  the  close  of  his  life  ? 

4.  What  did  Solomon  become  most  famous  for  ? 

Solomon  became  famous,  not  only  for  the  erection  of 
the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  but  also  as  the  first  of 
the  "  Sages  "  in  Israel.  P.  93. 


262  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

a.  What  was   his   object   in    building    the 

temple  ? 

b.  What  were  the  "sages"  of  Israel? 

c.  What  instances  are  related  of  Solomon's 

wisdom  ? 

d.  What  books  are  attributed  to  Solomon  as 

the  founder  of  the  sages  ? 

CHAPTER  X. 
[Pages  95-102.] 

REHOBOAM  AND  THE  DISRUPTION  OF  THE  KINGDOM. 

1.  What  befel  Israel  on  the  death  of  Solomon  ? 

On  the  death  of  Solomon  Rehoboam  became  king,  and 
in  his  reign  the  kingdom  was  split  in  two.    P.  95. 

a.  What  led  to  this  ? 

b.  What  attitude  did  the  prophets  assume 

under  these  circumstances  ? 

c.  Which  tribes  remained  faithful  to  Reho- 

boam ? 

2.  Who  became  king  of  the  ten  tribes  ? 

Jeroboam,  with  the  support  of  the  prophets,  became 
king  of  the  ten  tribes.    P.  96. 

a.  What  do  you  know  of  Jeroboam's  previ- 

ous history  ? 

b.  What  relation  did  he  sustain  to  the  pro- 

phets as  king  ? 

3.  Had  this  disruption  any  influence  on  re- 
ligion ? 


Catechism.  263 

This  disruption  caused  religion  in  Israel  to  take  quite 
a  different  turn  from  what  it  took  in  yudah, 
where  Mosaism  was  developed  in  greater  purity. 
P.  91. 

a.  What  was  the  condition  of  things  from 

this  time  forward  in  Israel  ? 

b.  What  influence  had  the  disruption  on  the 

state  of  religion  in  Judah  ? 

c.  What  did  the  prophets  in  Israel  think  of 

the  worship  of  Yahweh  in  the  likeness 
of  a  bull  ? 

4.  Was  there  no  further  connection  between 
the  two  kingdoms  ? 

The  two  kingdoms  were  generally  at  enmity  with 
each  other,  but  now  and  then  their  relations  were 
friendly.  P.  101. 

a.  What  shows  the  mutual  hostility  of  the 

two  kingdoms  ? 

b.  When  did  they  become  more  reconciled  ? 


CHAPTER  XL 

[Pages  103-116.] 
THE    KINGDOM    OF    ISRAEL. 

I.  What  was  the  state  of  religion  in  Israel  ? 

The  service  of  Yahweh  had  to  undergo  a  severe  strug- 
gle with  the  service  of  Baal  in  Israel.    P.  103. 

a.  Of  what  nature  was  the.  service  of  Baal  ? 


264  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

b.  What  previous  mention  is  there  of  re- 
ligious service  of  this  kind,  and  how  did 
that  of  these  later  times  differ  from  it  ? 

2.  What  prophets  opposed  the  service  of  Baal  ? 

The  prophets  Elijah  and  Elisha  powerfully  opposed 
the  service  of  Baal,  when  king  Ahab  strove  to 
impose  it  by  force.  P.  104. 

a.  How  did  Ahab  and  Jezebel  seek  to  up- 

hold the  service  of  Baal  ? 

b.  What  was  the  nature  of  Elijah's  prophetic 

efforts  ? 

c.  What  measures  did  he  take  in  opposition 

to  the  service  of  Baal  ? 

d.  What  do  we  read  about  Elijah  on  Mount 

Horeb  ? 

e.  Who  was  Elisha  ? 

f.  What  miracles  are  ascribed  to  these  proph- 
ets ? 

3.  What  prophets  arose  in   Israel  a  century 
later  ? 

A  century  later  Hosea,  Zechariah  (ix.-xi.),  and  Amos 
arose  in  Israel  and  preached  a  pure  monotheism 
in  opposition  to  the  bull  worship.  P.  113. 

a.  What  do  we  know  of  the  work  of  these 

prophets  ? 

b.  How  far  were  they  in  advance  of  Elijah 

and  Elisha  ? 

c.  Is  the  book  of  Zechariah  the  work  of  a 

single  prophet  ? 


Catechism.  265 

4.  How  did  the  kingdom  of  Israel  come  to  an 
end? 

After  existing  for  two  centuries  and  a  half,  the  king- 
dom of  Israel  was  destroyed  by  the  Assyrians, 
and  it  was  never  again  restored.  P.  1 16. 

a.  Do  we  know  of  any  earlier  invasions  of 
Israel  on  the  part  of  the  Assyrians  ? 

6.  What  new  inhabitants  did  the  conquered 
country  receive  ? 

c.  What  people  was  descended  from  them  ? 

CHAPTER  XII. 

[Pages  II7-I33-] 
THE   KINGDOM   OF   JUDAH. 

1.  What  do  you  know  of  the»state  of  religion 
in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  ? 

The  service  of  Yahweh  was  more  prominent  in  Judah 
than  in  Israel,  and  permanently  established  itself 
there.  P.  117. 

a.  Had  Judah's   possession  of   the  temple 

any  influence  in  this  respect  ? 

b.  What  did  the  priests  do  to  promote  the 

service  in  the  temple  ? 

2.  Had  the  kings  any  share  in  maintaining 
the  service  of  Yahweh  ? 

Many  of  the  kings  of  Judah,  especially  Hezekiah  and 
jfosiah,  showed  themselves  powerful  protectors 
of  the  service  of  Yahweh.  P.  120. 

34 


266  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

a.  Which  of  the  kings  did  so,  besides  those 

you  have  named  ? 

b.  Which  of  the  kings  showed  sympathies 

in  an  opposite  direction  ? 

c.  Were  sacrifices  offered  anywhere  besides 

at  Jerusalem  ? 

d.  Do  we  find  any  traces  of  the  service  of 

Baal  as  well,  in  Judah  ? 

e.  What   do   you   know  of  Josiah  and  his 

reformation  ? 

f.  What  prophet  supported  him  in  it  ? 

g.  How  is  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  con- 

nected with  this  reformation  ? 

3%  In  what  spirit  did  the  prophets  of  this  time 
labor  ? 

The  prophets,  who  were  often  opposed  to  the  priests, 
were  zealous  for  a  purer  development  of  Mosa- 
ism.  P.  121. 

a.  What  were  the  aims  of  the  prophets  ? 

b.  Whence   sprang   the   opposition   of   the 

priests  ? 

4.  What   led  to  the  fall  of   the  kingdom  of 
Judah  ? 

The  kingdom  of  Judah,  weakened  by  mixing  in  the 
wars  between  Egypt  and  Babylon  and  by  inter- 
nal divisions,  was  finally  conquered  by  Nebuchad- 
rezzar, who  laid  waste  the  city  and  the  temple, 
and  carried  off  the  people  to  Babylon.  P.  127. 


Catechism.  267 

a.  What  part  did  Judah  take  in  the  wars 

between  Egypt  and  Babylon  ? 

b.  By  what   religious   disputes   was   Judah 

weakened  ? 

c.  What  were  the  circumstances  of  its  fall  ? 

d.  Describe  the  behavior  of  Jeremiah,  and 

state  what  you  know  of  the  last  period 
of  his  life. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

[Pages  133-145-] 
PROPHECY. 

*  I.  What  was  prophecy  ? 

Prophecy  was  a  peculiar  phenomenon  in  Israel,  con- 
sisting in  the  appearance  of  pious  men,  inspired 
with  a  sacred  enthusiasm  to  testify  publicly  of 
Yahweh  and  his  service.  P.  133. 

a.  What  was   it   that   the   prophets  called 

God's  word  ? 

b.  Under  what  names  do  the  prophets  ap- 

pear in  the  Old  Testament  ? 

c.  Do  we   find  traces  of   this  phenomenon 

among  any  other  peoples  ? 

2.  When  did  prophecy  arise  in  Israel,  and  how 
long  did  it  continue  to  exist  ? 

From  SamuePs  time  onwards,  prophecy  was  on  the 
increase  in  Israel,  but  after  the  Babylonish  cap- 
tivity it  gradually  died  out.  P.  135. 


268  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

a.  Was  not  the  term  prophet,  applied  even 

to  one  so  early  as  Moses  ? 

b.  What  share  had  Samuel  in  the  promotion 

of  prophecy  ? 

c.  When  did  the  schools  of  the  prophets  fall 

into  decay  ? 

d.  When  did  prophecy  reach  its  climax  ? 

e.  Were  all  the  prophets  preachers,  properly 

so  called  ? 

3.  What  was  the  purport  of  the  preaching  of 
the  prophets  ? 

The  prophets  preached,  in  accordance  with  the  spirit 
of  Moses,  that  a  pure  theocracy  must  be  thorough- 
ly realized  in  Israel  as  Yahwehs  peculiar  people. 
P.  137. 

a.  How  did  they  conceive  the  relation  be- 

tween Yahweh  and  Israel  ? 

b.  What  moral  obligations  did  they  deduce 

from  it  ? 

c.  In  what  light  did  they  regard  the  heathen  ? 

d.  Had  their  preaching  any  bearing  on  poli- 

tics ? 

e.  In  what  respect  did  their  preaching  relate 

to  the  future  ? 

f.  What  development  can  we  trace  in  pro- 

phecy ? 

4.  What  causes  led  to  the  decay  of  prophecy  ? 


Catechism.  269 

The  prophets  got  but  little  hold  upon  the  people,  and 
prophetic  inspiration  gave  way  to  intellectual 
reflection  ;  and  so,  prophecy  gradually  fell  into 
decay.  P.  142. 

a.  In  what  respect  were  the  prophets  too 

advanced  for  the  people  ? 

b.  What  proof  have  we  of  the  gradual  de- 

cline of  the  prophetic  inspiration  ? 

c.  When  did  prophecy  cease  to  exist  ? 

d.  Were  there  false  prophets  as  well  as  true 

ones  ? 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

[Pages  146-153.] 
THE   MESSIANIC    EXPECTATION. 

1.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  Messianic  Ex- 
pectation ? 

The  Messianic  Expectation  consisted  in  the  firm  con- 
viction that  the  day  would  come  when  the  service 
of  the  God  of  Israel  would  prevail.  P.  147. 

a.  What  does  the  title,  "  Messiah,"  signify  ? 

b.  What  was  the  origin  of  this  conviction  in 

the  minds  of  the  prophets  ? 

c.  Do  we  find  any  traces  of  this  belief  in  the 

historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  ? 
(Gen.  iii.  15  ;  xii.  2  ;  2  Sam.  vii.  16.) 

2.  What  form  did  this  expectation  take  in  the 
minds  of  the  prophets  at  first  ? 


270  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

At  first  their  belief  was  confined  to  the  expectation  of  a 
happy  future  for  Israel  as  God's  people.  P.  148. 

a.  Which  of  the  prophets  entertained  this 

expectation  ? 

b.  How  did  they  represent  the  anticipated 

future  ? 

3.  What  form  did  the  Messianic  Expectation 
take  at  a  later  time  ? 

At  a  later  time  the  prophets  proclaimed  their  expect- 
ation that  the  Messianic  deliverance  would  be 
brought  about  by  a  prince  of  the  house  of  David. 
P.  149- 

a.  In  which  of  the  prophets  do  we  meet  with 

this  opinion  ? 

b.  What  made  them  fix  upon  a  prince  of  the 

house  of  David  ? 

c.  Did  they  all  advance   this  view  in  the 

same  form  ? 

4.  Did  the  Messianic  Expectation  undergo  still 
further  modification  ? 

Subsequently,  in  the  second  Isaiah,  the  religious  nu- 
cleus of  the  nation  took  the  place  of  the  personal 
Messiah.  P.  151. 

a.  Under  what  title  does  the  second  Isaiah 

speak  of  the  religious  nucleus  of  the 
nation,  and  what  does  he  say  concern- 
»  ing  it  ? 

b.  What  further  special  anticipation  do  we 

find  in  other  prophets  of  a  later  time  ? 


Catechism.  271 

CHAPTER  XV. 

[Pages  153-163.] 
THE   SAGES. 

1.  Who  were  the  " sages,"  in  Israel? 

The  name  of  "sages"  was  given,  in  Israel,  to  those 
men  who  took  an  interest  in  increasing  the  cul- 
ture of  the  people  by  teaching  them  lessons  of 
practical  wisdom.  P.  154. 

a.  With  whom  have  we  already  made  ac- 

quaintance   in    the    character    of    the 
founder  of  the  sages  ? 

b.  What  books  owe  their  origin  to  this  school  ? 

c.  In  what  did  the  special  character  of  their 

wisdom  consist  ? 

d.  How  were  the  sages  distinguished  from 

the  prophets  and  from  the  priests  ? 

e.  Had  this  school  popular  influence  ? 

2.  What  is  the  purpose  of  the  Book  of  Job  ? 

The  writer  of  the  Book  of  Job  endeavors  to  solve  the 
riddles  of  the  divine  government  in  reference  to 
the  calamities  which  befall  the  pious.  P.  157. 

a.  Are  we  concerned  with  real  history  in 

this  book  ? 

b.  In  what  form  does  the  writer  deal  with 

this  problem  ? 

c.  Does  he  solve  the  problem  satisfactorily  ? 


272  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

3.  What  are  the  contents  of  the  Book  of  Pro- 
verbs ? 

The  Book  of  Proverbs  comprises  a  collection  of  all 
kinds  of  lessons  on  a  wise  conduct  of  life.  P.  155. 

a.  What  are  proverbs  ? 

b.  What  are  the  principal  subjects  treated  of 

in  this  book  ? 

c.  Are  any  writers  or  collectors  of  proverbs 

mentioned  ? 

4.  What  are  the  characteristics  of  the  Preacher  ? 

The  Preacher  takes  a  very  gloomy  view  of  life  in 
general,  and  evidently  feels  his  inability  to  ex- 
plain the  riddles  of  life.  P.  160. 

a.  When  did  he  live  ? 

b.  What  are  the  principal  contents  of  his 

book  ? 

c.  Is  it  characterized  by  a  pure  morality  or 

a  genuinely  religious  tone  ? 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

[Pages  164-175.] 
THE    BABYLONISH   CAPTIVITY. 

I.  What  effect  had  the  sojourn  in  Babylon  on 
the  religious  life  of  the  Israelites  ? 

When  deprived  of  their  temple  and  their  religious 
services,  the  Israelites  began  to  feel  a  deeper 
interest  in  the  religion  of  Moses  and  the  preach- 
ing  of  the  prophets.  P.  165. 


Catechism.  273 

a.  Do  we  find  any  psalms  belonging  to  this 

period  in  our  collection  ? 
6.  What  was  the  condition  of  the  captives  ? 

2.  Did  any  prophets  arise  during  the  captivity  ? 

Ezekiel,  the  second  Isaiah  and  others  spoke  words 
of  consolation  and  encouragement  to  the  people. 
P.  166. 

a.  Who  was  Ezekiel  ? 

b.  What  do  we  know  of  the  second  Isaiah  ? 

c.  What  was  the  nature  of  their  labors  ? 

d.  What  other  prophets  were  there  ? 

3.  What  brought  the  Babylonish  captivity  to 
an  end  ? 

The  Persian  king,  Cyrus,  having  conquered  the  king- 
dom of  Babylon,  gave  the  captives  leave  to  return 
to  their  own  country.  P.  168. 

a.  How  came  Cyrus  to  be  so  favorably  dis- 

posed towards  them  ? 

b.  Did  they  all  avail  themselves  of  this  per- 

mission ? 

c.  Who  were  the  leaders  of  those  who  re- 

turned ? 

d.  Did  any  of  those  who  stayed  behind  after- 

wards return  from  Babylon  ? 

e.  What  are  we  told  in  addition,  in  the  book 

of  Esther,  about  those  who  stayed  be- 
hind ? 

4.  Did  the  Persians  exercise  any  influence  on 
the  religion  of  Israel  ? 

35 


274  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

Under  the  influence  of  the  Persians,  the  ideas  and 
opinions  of  the  Israelites  underwent  important 
modifications.  P.  171. 

a.  What  ideas   did  they   borrow  from    the 

Persians  concerning  angels  and  demons  ? 

b.  What  was  their  idea  of  Satan  before  the 

captivity  ? 

c.  Did  they  afterwards  adopt  any  ideas  from 

any  other  nations  ? 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

[Pages  175-188.] 
EZRA    AND     HIS    TIMES. 

I.  What  was  the  state  of  religion  among  the 
people  after  their  return  from  Babylon  ? 

Religious  feeling  was  at  first  very  animated  among 
those  who  had  returned,  but  it  soon  ceased  to  be 
so  ;  a  result  to  which  the  opposition  of  the  Samar- 
itans contributed  more  than  anything.  P.  175. 

a.  How  did  this  animation  manifest  itself? 

b.  How  did  the  opposition  of  the  Samaritans 

originate  ? 

c.  What  was  the  result  ? 

d.  Did  not  the  non-fulfilment  of  the  prophe- 

cies of  Ezekiel  and  the  second  Isaiah 
also  contribute  to  the  popular  discour- 
agement ? 

e.  When  was  the  erection  of  the  temple  com- 

pleted ? 


Catechism.  275 

f.  Which  of  the  prophets  powerfully  pro- 

moted this  work  ? 

g.  What  name  do  the  Israelites  bear  from 

this  time  forward  ? 

2.  Who  brought  about  a  favorable  change  in 
the  religious  feeling  of  the  people  ? 

Ezra,  who  returned  to  jFerusalem  from  Babylon  with 
a  number  more  of  the  captives,  and  stirred  up  new 
life  among  the  people  by  the  powerful  stimulus 
which  he  gave  to  their  love  of  the  Law.  P.  177. 

a.  Who  was  Ezra  ? 

b.  How  did  he  begin  his  work  ? 

c.  What  measure  did  he  take  in  reference  to 

the  foreign  wives  of  the  Jews  ? 

d.  Did  they  all  acquiesce  in  this  measure  ? 

e.  In  which  books  of  the  Old  Testament  do 

we  find   a  milder  opinion   concerning 
the  heathen  ? 

3.  What  did  Ezra  do  for  legislation  ? 

Ezra,  himself  a  priest,  introduced  into  Israel  the 
priestly  legislation  which  we  find  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  made  it  binding.  P.  179. 

a.  How  far  were  the  efforts  of  Ezra  in  har- 

mony with  those  of  the  old  prophets  ? 

b.  In  which  books  of  the  Pentateuch  do  we 

find  the  priestly  legislation  ? 

c.  At  what  period  was  it  composed  ? 


276  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

4.  Who  supported  Ezra  in  his  efforts  ? 

Nehemiah,  who  came  from  Babylon  soon  after  Ezra, 
seconded  his  efforts  loyally.  P.  182. 

a.  What  particulars  do  we  know  about  Nehe- 
miah ? 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

[Pages  188-204.] 
PUBLIC   WORSHIP   AND   THE   SYNAGOGUE. 

1.  How  was  the  temple-service  conducted  at 
this  time  ? 

The  temple-service  was  now  conducted  entirely  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  priestly  legislation.  P.  189. 

a.  How  far  did  the  second  temple  resemble 

Solomon's  ? 

b.  What  were  the  duties  of  the  priests  and 

of  the  Levites  ? 

c.  What  sacrifices  were  now  offered  ? 

2.  What  great  festivals  were  kept  ? 

The  great  festivals  which  were  kept  were  the  Pass- 
over,  Pentecost,  and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles. 
P.  192. 

a.  How  did  these  festivals  originate  ? 

b.  What  was  the  Sabbath  ? 

c.  Were  there  any  other  festivals  ? 

d.  What  was  the  Great  Day  of  Atonement  ? 


Catechism.  277 

3.  How  did  the  synagogues  arise  ? 

In  Babylon  the  Jews  began  to  assemble  for  the  hear- 
ing of  the  Law,  and  from  this  practice  the  syna- 
gogues arose.  P.  199. 

a.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  term  syna- 

gogue ? 

b.  Were   they   intended    to   supersede   the 

temple  ? 

c.  Were  they  known  so  early  as  the  first  part 

of  the  captivity  ? 

4.  How  was  the  synagogue  introduced  into 
Judaea  ? 

The  synagogue  was  probably  introduced  from  Baby- 
lon into  jpud&a  by  Ezra,  and  there  used  for 
explaining  and  expounding  the  Law.  P.  199. 

a.  What  were  the  men  called  who  were  em- 

ployed in  explaining  the  Law  ? 

b.  Were  the  lawyers  distinct  from  them  ? 

c.  Was  the  authority  of  the  priests  impaired 

at  all  by  that  of  the  scribes  ? 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

[Pages  204-225.] 

THE  JEWS   IN  THE  AGE   IMMEDIATELY  PRECEDING  THE 
CHRISTIAN    ERA. 

I.  What  course  did  the  history  of  the  Jews 
take  after  their  return  from  Babylon  ? 


278  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

The  history  of  the  yews,  after  their  return  from 
Babylon,  embraces  the  following  periods :  I.  The 
Persian  rule;  II.  The  Greek  rule;  III.  Na- 
tional independence  under  the  Maccabees ;  I V.  The 
rule  of  Herod  and  of  the  Romans.  P.  2  04. 

a.  How  long  did  each  of  these  periods  last  ? 

b.  Relate  the  most  important  events. 

c.  What  princes  reigned  over  the  Jews  during 

the  period  of  Greek  rule  ? 

d.  Did  the  spirit  of  Greek  civilization  exer- 

cise any  influence  on  Judaism  ? 

2.  What  struggle  was  brought  about  by  the 
despotic  measures  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  ? 

Antiochus  Epiphanes  wanted  to  force  Greek  civiliza- 
tion upon  the  yews,  and  this  led  them  to  offer 
that  valiant  resistance  which  the  Maccabees  put 
themselves  at  the  head  of.  P.  2 12. 

a.  In  what  books  do  we  find  a  history  of 

this  rebellion  ? 

b.  Give  an  account  of  it  ? 

c.  What  do  you  know  about  the  government 

of  the  Maccabees  ? 

d.  What   Jewish   festival    dates   from    this 

epoch  ? 

3.  What  book  of  the  Old  Testament  was  writ- 
ten in  reference  to  this  struggle  ? 

The  Book  of  Daniel,  written  in  the  year  165  before 
Christ,  aims  at  encouraging  the  pious  in  this 
struggle.  P.  215. 


Catechism.  279 

a.  Give  an  outline  of  the  book. 

b.  With  what  character  does  the  writer  con- 

nect his  story  ? 

c.  Of  what  class  of  literature  was  this  book 

the  beginning  ? 

d.  How  was   it   intended  to  sustain  pious 

men  in  their  efforts  ? 

4.  What  influence  had  Greek  rule  on  the  state 
of  religion  among  the  Jews  ? 

Under  the  influence  of  Greek  rule  the  different  religious 
schools  among  the  Jews  began  to  become  more 
distinctly  defined.  P.  218. 

a.  To  what  schools  do  we  refer  ? 

b.  What   were    the    characteristics   of    the 

Pharisees  ? 

c.  And  of  the  Sadducees  ? 

d.  And  of  the  Essenes  ? 


CHAPTER  XX. 

[Pages  225-239.] 
THE   SAME   CONTINUED. 

I.  When  did  the  Jews  lose  their  national  ex- 
istence altogether  ? 

After  having  been  dependent  upon  the  Romans  for 
a  considerable  time,  at  the  beginning  of  our  era 
the  yews  lost  their  national  existence  altogether. 
P.  209. 


280  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

a.  When  did  they  come  under  the  sway  of 

the  Romans  ? 

b.  What  royal  family  still   ruled  over  the 

Jews  ? 

c.  When    were    they   incorporated    in    the 

Roman  dominions  ? 

d.  In  what  year  did  the  Jewish  state  come 

to  an  end  ? 

2.  What  had  meanwhile  befallen  the  religion 
of  the  Jews  out  of  Palestine  ? 

With  a  great  part  of  the  Jews  abroad  the  religion  of 
Moses  had  acquired  a  peculiar  character  through 
contact  with  Greek  civilization.  P.  226. 

a.  What  was  this  character  ? 

b.  What  do  you  mean  by  "  Hellenism  "  ? 

c.  What  are  proselytes,  and  what  distinctions 

were  there  among  them  ? 

d.  What  translation  of  the  Old  Testament 

dates  from  this  period  ? 

3.  Where  and  in  whom  did  this  peculiar  char- 
acter manifest  itself  in  the  most  special  manner*? 

This  peculiar  character  manifested  itself  especially  at 
Alexandria,  in  Philo,  who  was  a  contemporary 
of  Jesus.  P.  230. 

a.  Who  was  this  Philo  ? 

b.  What  influence  did  Greek  philosophy  ex- 

ercise on  him  ? 

c.  In  what  fashion  did  he  endeavor  to  ex- 

plain the  Old  Testament  ? 


Catechism.  281 

d.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  "  Logos  "  ? 

e.  What  do  we  find  on  this  subject  in  the 

New  Testament  ? 

4.  What  was  there  noteworthy  in  the  religious 
condition  of  the  world  about  the  beginning  of 
the  Christian  era  ? 

While  Judaism  seemed  perishing  in  formalism,  and 
paganism  was  exhausted  by  doubt  and  immor- 
ality, pious  men,  among  Jews  and  heathen  alike, 
were  eagerly  seeking  a  better  religion.  P.  234. 

a.  What  is  formalism  ? 

6.  What  do  you  know  about  the  doubt  and 
immorality  of  the  heathen  ? 

c.  How  did  this  search  for  a  better  religion 

show  itself  ? 

d.  What  traces  do  we  find  of  it  in  Greek 

and  Latin  authors  ? 


CHAPTER  XXI. 
[Pages  240-246.] 

THE    COLLECTION    OF    THE     BOOKS     OF    THE    OLD 
TESTAMENT. 

I.  When  was  the  collection  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment writings  begun  ? 

The  collection  of  the  Old  Testament  writings  was 
begun  after  the  Babylonish  captivity,  by  Ezra, 
who  joined  together  the  five  books  ascribed  to 
Moses,  and  set  them  up  as  a  legal  code.  P.  240. 

36 


282  The  Religion  of  Israel. 

a.  What  did  Ezra  begin  with  ? 

b.  What  are  we  told  about  Nehemiah  in  this 

connection  ? 

c.  What  books  were  written  after  the  time 

of  Ezra  ? 

d.  Who  carried  on  the  work  begun  by  Ezra  ? 

2.  How  did  the  work  of  collection  proceed  ? 

First,  the  Prophets,  and  then,  by  degrees,  the  Writ- 
ings were  added  to  the  Law ;  and  the  whole 
collection  was  closed  in  the  course  of  the  century 
before  Christ.  P.  241. 

a.  What  were  the  last  writings  to  be  incor- 
porated in  this  collection  ? 

d.  Was  there  any  difference  of  opinion  about 
including  certain  books  ? 

3.  What  value  did  the  Jews  finally  set  on  this 
collection  ? 

This  collection  acquired  canonical  authority  with  the 
Jews  ;  that  is  to  say,  it  was  regarded  as  a  divine 
rule  of  faith  and  morals.  P.  244. 

a.  What  is  the  derivation  of  the  word  "  can- 

onical "  ? 

b.  Did  all  these  books  acquire  this  authority 

at  the  same  time  ? 

4.  How  did  the  rest  of  the  religious  writings 
of  the  Jews  come  to  be  regarded  through  these 
circumstances  ? 


Catechism.  283 

The  rest  of  the  religious  writings  of  the  Jews,  pro- 
duced in  the  last  period  of  their  national  exist- 
ence, are  called  "  Apocryphal"  ;  and,  though  the 
Jews  were  at  liberty  to  use  them,  they  were  not 
allowed  to  be  publicly  read  in  the  synagogue. 
P.  244- 

a.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  term  "  Apo- 

cryphal" ? 

b.  Mention   the   most    important   of   these 

books. 

c.  In  what  language  have  they  been  pre- 

served ? 

d.  How  did  the  Talmud  arise  ? 


Messrs.  Roberts  Brothers"  Publications. 


QUIET    HOURS. 

A    COLLECTION   OF  POEMS,  MEDITATIVE 
AND    RELIGIOUS. 


"Under  this  modest  title  we  have  here  about  a  hundred  and  fifty  of  the  best 
short  poems  in  the  language.  The  compiler,  whoever  she  is,  has  a  rare  taste,  and 
also,  what  is  equally  valuable,  good  judgment.  The  poems  are  on  all  subjects. 
This  dainty  little  volume  is  just  the  book  for  a  Christmas  or  New  Year's  gift." 
—  Peterson's  Magazine. 

"  Such  a  book  as  this  seems  to  us  much  better  adapted  than  any  formal  book 
of  devotion  to  beget  a  calm  and  prayerful  spirit  in  the  reader.  It  will  no  doubt 
become  a  dear  companion  to  many  earnestly  religious  people."  —  Christian 
Register. 

"  '  Quiet  Hours'  is  the  appropriate  title  which  some  unnamed  compiler  has  given 
to  a  collection  of  musings  of  many  writers  —  a  nosegay  made  up  of  some  slighter, 
choicer,  and  more  delicate  flowers  from  the  garden  of  the  poets.  Emerson, 
Chadwick,  Higginson,  Arnold,  Whittier,  and  Clough,  are  represented,  as  well  as 
Coleridge,  Browning,  Wordsworth,  and  Tennyson  ;  and  the  selections  widely 
vary  in  character,  ranging  from  such  as  relate  to  the  moods  and  aspects  of  na- 
ture, to  voices  of  the  soul  when  most  deeply  stirred.' '  —  Congregationalist. 


i8mo,  cloth,  red  edges.     Price  $1.00.     Sold  by  all  Book- 
sellers.    Mailed,  postpaid,  by  the  Publishers, 

ROBERTS   BROTHERS, 

Boston. 


Messrs.  Roberts  Brothers'  Publications. 


THE    'WISDOM    SERIES." 

EDITED  BY  THE  EDITOR   OF  "QUIET 
HOURS"  AND  "SURSUM  CORD  A." 


SELECTIONS    FROM    THE    IMITATION  OF   CHRIST.     By 
Thomas  a  Kempis. 

SELECTIONS  FROM  THE  THOUGHTS  OF    MARCUS    Au- 
RELIUS  ANTONINUS. 

"These  little  volumes,  small  enough  for  the  pocket,  and  neat  enough  for  the 
cabinet  or  parlor-table,  are  admirably  selected  from  two  of  the  books  which  can 
never  grow  old,  nor  lose  their  charm  to  devout  and  meditative  minds.  They  may 
well  lead  the  "  Wisdom  Series."  The  editor  who  gave  us  the  excellent  volume 
of  selected  poems  called  Quiet  ffours,  and  who  has  just  prepared  another  and 
similar  book,  has  done  the  public  a  service  by  here  putting  together  in  compact 
form  the  best  of  the  thoughts  and  aspirations  which  this  generation  is  too  little 
disposed  to  look  for  amidst  the  less  pregnant  and  valuable  matter  with  which  they 
are  mingled  in  the  full  editions.  A  brief,  but  compact  and  readable  memoir  pre- 
faces each  volume."  —  Unitarian  Review. 

SUNSHINE  IN  THE  SOUL.     Poems  selected  by  the  Edi- 
tor of  "Quiet  Hours." 

SELECTIONS  FROM  EPICTETUS. 


i8mo,  cloth,  red  edges.     Price  50  xents  each.     Sold  by 
all  Booksellers.     Mailed,  postpaid,  by  the  Publishers, 

ROBERTS    BROTHERS, 

Boston. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 
SENT  OMUL 

APR  0  7  2003 

U.  C.  BERKELEY 


12,000(11/95) 


YR  71030 


